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

Re: A new proposal (was: Re: which layer for URI processing?)

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 10:27:47 -0400
Message-Id: <200005251425.KAA29176@hesketh.net>
To: xml-uri@w3.org
At 10:19 AM 5/25/00 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Jonathan Borden wrote:
>> Is there a class of problems caused by relative URIs that isn't also caused
>> by un-normalized URIs?
>
>Yes!  The fact that two apparently distinct absolute URIs (e.g.
>"http://one.example.com/foo" and "http://two.example.com/foo") refer to
the same
>thing is a very different problem from the fact that apparently identical
>relative URI references (e.g. "foo" in doc1 and "foo" in doc2) refer to
>different things.
>
>Nothing but confusion is gained by mixing up these issues.

Does normalized mean dereferenced here, or does it just mean purging '.'
and '..' from the URI?

From Jonathan's original:
>But as Paul Grosso notes, the URIs:
>
>http://example.com/./detonator and
>http://example.com/detonator
>will typically refer to the same resource despite the fact that the 2 URIs
>are not identical, so the fact that a relative URI is 'absolutized' on the
>client or an absolute URI is normalized on a server doesn't change the fact
>that there is a binding process which associates a URI with a resource.


Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Thursday, 25 May 2000 10:25:55 UTC

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