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

Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> Tue, 27 January 2015 17:19 UTC

Return-Path: <masinter@adobe.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B79A1A8879 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:19:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d5sd2zC8QIIu for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0070.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 890D21A7029 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:19:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.216.28) by DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com (25.160.216.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.65.19; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:19:16 +0000
Received: from DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.216.28]) by DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com ([25.160.216.28]) with mapi id 15.01.0065.013; Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:19:16 +0000
From: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison
Thread-Index: AQHQNi9NMknCnoECn062w/S4lSg7MpzNBGKggAV/pACAAbYn4A==
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:19:16 +0000
Message-ID: <DM2PR0201MB0960AAC795224D9D5D8D5485C3320@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
References: <54B18B61.8010308@seantek.com> <54B19435.8070401@intertwingly.net> <54B1B211.3050807@seantek.com> <54B1B682.3070609@intertwingly.net> <012001d02d91$6ec42300$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2781C.4040505@intertwingly.net> <018e01d02dc6$1d03b0a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <54B2CC75.5080900@intertwingly.net> <54B79930.3070009@ninebynine.org> <54B7AEC2.9010109@intertwingly.net> <20150116033032.GD2350@localhost> <DM2PR0201MB096082B3915B85F60EDB617DC34F0@DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <015c01d0362f$1f6f6020$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <BN3PR0201MB0945D77BAC3FFB5396057D7AC3360@BN3PR0201MB0945.namprd02.prod.outlook.com> <54C65580.2080407@ninebynine.org>
In-Reply-To: <54C65580.2080407@ninebynine.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [50.184.24.49]
authentication-results: ninebynine.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none; ninebynine.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=adobe.com;
x-dmarcaction-test: None
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(3005004);SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0960;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0960;
x-forefront-prvs: 046985391D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(110136001)(102836002)(54206007)(93886004)(40100003)(66066001)(99286002)(122556002)(2900100001)(2950100001)(74316001)(2656002)(15975445007)(76176999)(54356999)(54606007)(46102003)(50986999)(19580395003)(76576001)(87936001)(62966003)(106116001)(77156002)(92566002)(86362001)(33656002)(230783001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR0201MB0960; H:DM2PR0201MB0960.namprd02.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: adobe.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Jan 2015 17:19:16.4607 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: fa7b1b5a-7b34-4387-94ae-d2c178decee1
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0201MB0960
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/yOU9mENAPmeBcFiIr0I4mHHe1R0>
Cc: "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-ietf-iri-comparison
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 17:19:20 -0000

> 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.

I don't understand your concern. RFC 3986 (Standard) and RFC 3987
(Proposed Standard) already talk about comparison, in a way that
is incomplete, and at times confusing (e.g., by not being clear
about comparison vs. equivalence vs. canonicalization or
normalization as concepts.)

And some kinds of comparison need standardization, like for
'origin'.

> Further I don't believe it is possible to completely define URI
> equivalence of different URI strings in a meaningful way, 

I don't think the goal is to "completely define" it, but rather
put some constraints on conforming comparison methods
such that URI/URL/IRI producers can make assumptions about
the IRI/URL -> URI conversion (and URI -> IRI/URL too),
Namely that the conversion result will be equivalent under
any conforming comparison method (other than code-point
by code-point.)

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