RE: I-D ACTION:draft-daigle-uri-std-00.txt

At 09:05 07/09/00 -0700, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> > Do you go further and say that  XSLT (which matches elements
> > and attributes
> > based on their namespaces being the same) must therefore use this
> > definition of equivalence?  I.e. two QNames match if their
> > namespace URIs
> > are byte-for-byte identical and their local parts are the same?
> >
> > Again, I agree, but Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (at least) has
> > expressed the
> > view that this is not what the relevant RFCs/RECs say (or
> > what they should
> > say).
>
>That is over-simplifying what I stated - in [1], I said that
>
>     1) The generator of a name has the responsiblity to
>        know the semantics of the URI space that she is using
>
>     2) It is sufficient if a basic consumer only uses
>        octet-by-octet comparison taking into account relative
>        URIs. However, it is also fully acceptable for the
>        consumer to know about special normalization rules of a
>        URI space and apply those if so desired.
>
>which I further elaborated on in [2] mentioning the responsibilities of
>the party generating the document and the party consuming the document.
>
>Henrik
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0721.html
>[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-uri/2000Jun/0739.html

I was referring to the following exchange

Me:

>You are saying, then, that the XPath REC should permit, _but not require_, 
>XPath implementations (including XSLT) to normalise NSURIs in a scheme 
>dependent manner when comparing names?

Henrik:

>You can not require them to do that just as well as you can not require 
>them to know about a particular namespace.

Me:

>This can clearly result in a given XML source/XSLT stylesheet combination 
>producing different results depending on the normalisations performed by 
>the particular XPath implementation.

Henrik:

>If you don't want that possibility then don't use a URI space that has
>this behavior - it is up to you, see [1].

--
Cheers,
John

Received on Thursday, 7 September 2000 12:59:37 UTC