Re: Inclusions and other gotchas (was:Re: inclusion)

At 12:00 PM 2000-05-26 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>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.
>

For a practical case that actually gets used, point the mailto: at a mailbot.

>> 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).

OK, now I'm confused.  Is there a layering/procrastination approach or not?

Is there a case where literal comparison of _two ns-attr values occurring
in the same document_ will find them the same whereas abolutizing as
URI-references per URI RFC will determine them to be different?

I may have missed that case.

If the only risk on literal comparison is that things will be treated as
different that in the ultimate analysis later get recognized as the same,
is anything really broken by preserving this illusion of difference through
_syntactic_ processing?

Al


>
>-- 
>
>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 12:56:12 UTC