[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...
• Subject: Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:58:11 -0800
• In-reply-to: <1013921907.950.170.camel@l...>
• References: <1013921907.950.170.camel@l...> <1013897444.947.105.camel@l...> <B892A842.E7FE%patrick.stickler@n...> <3C6D4AA4.D436E345@p...><1013801882.948.34.camel@l... n> <3C6E868B.7C4C4B79@p...><1013882059.947.57.camel@l... n> <3C6E905E.3E8A705@p...> <1013883748.949.85.camel@l...> <014101c1b72a$d0df7760$0301a8c0@n...> <200202170349.g1H3nEj19687@d...>

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Joe English wrote:
> > Two URIs are equal when they are textually identical.  Period.
>
> This was hotly contested and never really answered during the battle of
> relative URI references on xml-uri@w....
>
> Can you cite some chapter and verse to back this up?  It's how namespace
> processing works, per Namespaces in XML, but I've never found anything
> that claims this is true across all URI schemes.

No, just the Namespaces REC (1. "Motivation and Summary",
paragraph 5 [Definition: identity]).  Outside of that I
haven't seen an official ruling.

Oddly enough, the RDF M&S spec seems to be silent on the issue.
I'd guess that for most other specs the issue simply never
comes up. 


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: Re: Why REST was Re: URIs are simply names
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • 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...>
  • Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract"URIs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • 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...>

• 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: standardization (was Re: URIs are simply names)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread