W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-uri@w3.org > May 2000

Re: Where's the bone of contention? (small clarification)

From: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:42:32 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.20000523144104.021572e4@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 14:54 2000 05 23 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>At 09:16 AM 2000-05-23 -0400, Paul W. Abrahams wrote:
>>James Clark wrote:
>>> The problematic case is when you have
>>> two URI references that are identical when compared as strings but refer
>>> to different resources (because they have different base URIs).  This is
>>> like having obj1 == obj2 but not obj1.equals(obj2). 

>>But can that case arise in the namespace spec itself? 

>This is a narrower reading of the Namespaces Rec than some people would
>seem to apply.  The other comparison which may or may not be intended or
>implied has to do with "binding the elements and attributes in the document
>syntax-as-recognized to appropriate further processing."  This is where
>some vagueness lies, and we are exploring how to articulate a layering in a
>backward-nondestructive, and forward-constructive, fashion.

No, you're missing something.

>>If I've overlooked something, do you have an example showing how the
>uniqueness
>>test can give misleading results because of different absolutizations of the
>>attributes being compared?
>
>It's not the uniqueness test

Yes, it is the uniqueness (of attributes) test.  See:

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000May/0056

paul
Received on Tuesday, 23 May 2000 15:42:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:42 UTC