- From: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 12:00:26 -0400
- To: Larry Masinter <masinter@attlabs.att.com>
- CC: keshlam@us.ibm.com, xml-uri@w3.org
Larry Masinter wrote an excellent summary, to which I add the following notes only: > There are a few areas where we can predict that sra(URI1, URI2) is false, > but not many. HTTP URLs can be aliased. It would be hard to claim that > you could create a system where a 'mailto' URI was sra a 'http' URL. Well, not quite true. For example, it could be the case that mailing to "mailto:submission@example.com" and POSTing to "http://www.example.com/submission" has the same effect, so they could plausibly be considered two URIs for the same (write-only) resource. > The point is to create a computationally practical way of predicting > whether a receiver 'understands' the XML document it's given by > examining the namespace it's sent. In practice, senders shouldn't > rely on receivers having an effective approximation to 'sra' other than > the one that returns 'true' when the URIs are string-equal and returns > 'unknown' when they're not string equal. Nobody in this debate wants to go past that point, except in strawman mode (not "trial balloon", but the original sense of "strawman": a caricature of your opponent's position, created for the purpose of demolishing it). If the URIs are string-equal, the namespaces are equal. However, if the URI *references* are string-equal, must the namespaces be equal also? "Absolutizing" position: no. "Literal" position: yes. "Forbid" position: MU (let's unask the question, and make sure it can't be asked any more). -- Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || http://www.reutershealth.com Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)
Received on Friday, 26 May 2000 12:00:57 UTC