Re: issue 502, point 6

We'll consider the revised version at our next telcon meeting.

======================
David Fallside
Chair, XMLP WG



[email protected] wrote on 09/16/2004 08:19:26 AM:

> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > 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."
>
> During yesterday's teleconference, the following text was proposed:
> "URI comparison SHOULD be done character-for-character"
> Your proposed text looks very similar, but takes a different angle, and
> actually I prefer yours :)
> Is the WG ok to resolve 502 with this text instead of the originally
> proposed one?
>
> > 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.
>
> Also note that the Rep header is just there to provide locally a
> representation, it is not required that this representation will be used,

> so if the match is character-for-character and URI are similar, but
> written differently, it is not a big issue if an implementation fail to
> associate them.
>
> --
> Yves Lafon - W3C
> "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."