| Newsgroups |
gmane.text.xml.distributed |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
This may arrive after our discussion, since I am in the air right now as
you are having the call. In case it's helpful, I see the representation
header as enabling the implementation of proxy caching, e.g. with HTTP. In
this particular case, I would think the right answer would be along the
lines of:
"URIs that are character for character identical MUST be considered equal
when using a representation header to resolve a web reference; URIs that
are considered equal according to the URI scheme of the URI SHOULD be
considered equal."
Otherwise, we prohibit http://example.com/somename from matching
HTTP://example.com/somename and http://EXAMPLE.COM/somename. I don't have
all the pertinent rfc's with me here on the plane, but I believe that per
the HTTP spec these are equal and all would match the same entry in a
proxy cache.
--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------
Yves Lafon <[email protected]>
Sent by: [email protected]
09/09/2004 08:44 AM
To: [email protected]
cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
Subject: issue 502, point 6
This issue is about URI equivalence.
We have two choices there:
1/ do like XML Namespace, and use a "character-for-character" comparison
2/ require exact mapping, including all possible variations
As the goal is to add a header with the content of a URI found in the
original infoset, I see no reason to change the characters of the URI in
that process, so my preference goes to solution 1.
Comments?
--
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."