Re: 4.2.7.1 Comparing atom:id

[Martin Duerst]

At 16:09 05/05/22, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

Robert Sayre wrote:
 I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)
 http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.

That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true 
for Atom?


It says:
   When IRIs are compared to
   select (or avoid) a network action, such as retrieval of a
   representation, fragment components (if any) should be excluded from
   the comparison.

IDs are just identifiers, not used for network action, so this doesn't
apply.

Regards,Martin.

Are we going to refer to that specification and that section from 4.2.7.1 
in a future draft?



--
  Anne van Kesteren
  http://annevankesteren.nl/
 

Re: 4.2.7.1 Comparing atom:id

[Anne van Kesteren]

Robert Sayre wrote:

I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)

http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.


That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true 
for Atom? Are we going to refer to that specification and that section 
from 4.2.7.1 in a future draft?



--
 Anne van Kesteren
 http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: 4.2.7.1 Comparing atom:id

[Anne van Kesteren]

Robert Sayre wrote:

I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)

http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.


That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true
for Atom? 


Where does is say that?


Sorry about that. I should read better before sending in questions.

As you've probably noticed I referred to paragraph three of that 
section, but it talks about network retrieval. Paragraph four really 
applies to what we are talking about here...



--
 Anne van Kesteren
 http://annevankesteren.nl/

4.2.7.1 Comparing atom:id

[Anne van Kesteren]

http://atompub.org/2005/04/18/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.html#rfc.section.4.2.7.1

I was wondering about:

# Likewise,
#
# http://www.example.com/~bob
# http://www.example.com/%7ebob
# http://www.example.com/%7Ebob
#
# are three distinct identifiers, because IRI %-escaping is significant
# for the purposes of comparison.

s/significant/insignificant/?


--
 Anne van Kesteren
 http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: 4.2.7.1 Comparing atom:id

[Anne van Kesteren]

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
http://atompub.org/2005/04/18/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.html#rfc.section.4.2.7.1 


I was wondering about:

# Likewise,
#
# http://www.example.com/~bob
# http://www.example.com/%7ebob
# http://www.example.com/%7Ebob
#
# are three distinct identifiers, because IRI %-escaping is significant
# for the purposes of comparison.

s/significant/insignificant/?


I see I might have misinterpreted the prose. If so, I think it is not 
very clear. Can't we just say something that atom:id IRIs MUST NOT be 
normalized?



--
 Anne van Kesteren
 http://annevankesteren.nl/

Re: 4.2.7.1 Comparing atom:id

[Robert Sayre]

On 5/21/05, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Anne van Kesteren wrote:
  http://atompub.org/2005/04/18/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.html#rfc.section.4.2.7.1
 
  I was wondering about:
 
  # Likewise,
  #
  # http://www.example.com/~bob
  # http://www.example.com/%7ebob
  # http://www.example.com/%7Ebob
  #
  # are three distinct identifiers, because IRI %-escaping is significant
  # for the purposes of comparison.
 
  s/significant/insignificant/?
 
 I see I might have misinterpreted the prose. If so, I think it is not
 very clear. Can't we just say something that atom:id IRIs MUST NOT be
 normalized?

I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)

http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.

Robert Sayre