Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Masinter" <[e-mail]>
To: "Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>; "t.petch"
<[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2015 6:58 AM

> > Based on the experience with that document, I'd recommend to mostly
> > leave the equivalence/canonicalization/comparison story alone to
save
> > cycles for more immediately relevant work.
>
> I think separating it out into a separate document that can proceed at
its own pace is a good idea, but there are important specific use cases
to standardize.
>
> > Of course that doesn't
> > exclude the possibility that somebody write a better story, but that
can
> > be done as a paper or a blog entry or an informal RFC independent of
> > standards work.
>
> I think there are requirements on
comparison/equivalence/canonicalization that need to be normative, and
what we have, now, is normative but misleading or incorrect. A URL needs
to be equivalent to the URI it parses into.

Larry, Martin

Thank you for the clarification.  I see now how the I-D would have
updated RFC3986 had it advanced to completion.

I was not intending to pursue the subject of comparison further at this
time, rather the I-D is part of a Bibliography I hark back to when
issues of IRIs come up (as  recently they did).  Expired Draft it may
be, but I still find it a useful source of ideas.

Tom Petch









>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>