[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names

• To: <xml-dev@l...>,"Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@m...>
• Subject: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
• Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002 12:50:43 -0500
• References: <1013913614.893.158.camel@l...> <B892A842.E7FE%patrick.stickler@n...><3C6D4AA4.D436E345@p...>< 10 13801882.948.34.camel@l... n><3C6E868B.7C4C4B79@p...><1013882059.947.57.camel@l... om ai n> <3C6E905E.3E8A705@p...><1013883748.949.85.camel@l... in > <014101c1b72a$d0df7760$0301a8c0@n...> <1013897444.947.105.camel@l...> <016d01c1b754$ec6eba20$0301a8c0@n...> <200202170437.g1H4bij19884@d...> <p04330101b8956df1df56@[192.168.254.4]>

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>
> This thread is beginning to convince me that a namespace name is not
> a URI. If such a basic notion as identity/equality is different for
> URIs and namespace names, then they may in fact not be the same
> thing. They may just happen to share the same grammar.
>

Much of these issues were the essence of the xml-uri@w... debacle. What
you say is true. The problem, from an XML Namespaces POV, is that XML
parsers ought not be burdened with an algorithm that depends on the URI
scheme, particularly when new schemes, with new comparison rules, may be
registered with the IETF in the future. From a practical point of view,
simple string comparison is the best solution for a simple XML parser, on
the other hand this doesn't take into account important features of URIs
(such as relative URIs, domain case insensitivity etc.). So there you have
it.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@n...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by Date: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Previous by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Next by thread: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread