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

[Graham Klyne <[e-mail]>]

IF this issue gets further discussion, I'd be very concerned that a comparison 
of URI beyond simple character comparison would not be universally implemented. 
  E.g., I do from time-to-time use URIs as index values for dictionary lookups - 
that depends implicitly on character-based equality.

Further I don't believe it is possible to completely define URI equivalence of 
different URI strings in a meaningful way, because the notion of equivalence 
depends on context of use.  When working with, say, RDF, when it is important to 
be sure that two references are denoting the same thing, the easy way is to just 
use the same referring string;  alternatively, use some extrinsic assertion that 
two different URIs are denoting the same thing.

In other words, why bother?  Just keep it simple.

#g
--


On 23/01/2015 05:23, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Tom Petch wrote, re draft-ietf-iri-comparison
>
>> I notice that this (expired) I-D updates RFC3986 which seems germane to
>> recent discussions on this list.  Reading it, I can see why it might
>> update RFC3987 or 3987bis but cannot see where it updates RFC3986.
>> What am I missing?
>
> I'm afraid
>
> " As URIs are a subset of IRIs, the guidelines apply to URI comparison as well."
>
> should have said the id ("Comparison, Equivalence and Canonicalization
>   of Internationalized Resource Identifiers")
> was intended to replace RFC 3986 section 6 "Normalization and Comparison"
> in its entirety.
>
> At this point I'd suggest comments on open in URL issues
> https://github.com/webspecs/url/issues/18
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27640
>
> Should equivalence of URLs should mandate that if you parse URL  A and
> get back URI B, then A must be equivalent to B?
> Then, if you have a different URL C that turns into B, C must also be equivalent
> to A and B. Even for URLs that are valid URIs.
> This requirement in 3986 is just a MAY.
>
> Larry
> --
> http://larry.masinter.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>