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

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

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 21:58:42 -0700
Message-ID: <783D93998201D311B0CF00805FEAA07B08AEAC4A@RED-MSG-42>
To: "'John Cowan'" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: xml-uri@w3.org

From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
> 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.

John, you have the wrong example. Another example would be two namespace
names using textually equal, absolute URIs that are not globally unique,
such as "news:ibm.aplsv" or "file:foo.txt". These URIs are absolute but not
globally unique because they depending on the associated newsserver or
fileserver, and may be different when dereferenced by the same process in
different contexts.

Best regards
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 01:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:13:58 UTC