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

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

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 15:14:42 -0400
To: "John Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>, <xml-uri@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001101bfc80f$cffd4590$1b19da18@ne.mediaone.net>
John Cowan wrote:

> The problem (from the TimBL camp's viewpoint) is not that some
> URI references are
> context-dependent, but that the Namespace Rec defines a version
> of equality
> between pairs of URI references that conflicts with the rest of the Web
> system's understanding of equality.

	If this is really the whole argument, then at least you have defined it in
a way that can be more easily discussed. The "rest of the Web system's
understanding of equality" meaning exactly what? Perhaps part of this
discussion is about what is the best way to define equality, or equivalence,
of resouces.

	I think the "rest of the Web" is considering URI resolution which is
different than literal namespace comparison. What real world problem is
created? I'm still not convinced that there is a pressing need to change the
REC.

>
> >         Banning relative URIs, or 'absolutizing' them (quotes
> because prepending
> > the base URI which itself may be a file URI doesn't cut it)
> doesn't solve
> > the problem of context dependency.
>
> "Absolutizing" is a term of art, equivalent to "RFC 2396 resolution".
>

	Ok. But RFC 2396 does state: "1.4 Hierarchical URI and Relative Forms
An absolute identifier refers to a resource independent of the context in
which the identifier is used. " so the implication is that "absolutizing" a
URI is more than merely prepending the base.

Jonathan Borden
Received on Saturday, 27 May 2000 15:27:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:43 UTC