[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] subject sets (was: Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PTThursday 2009-07-16)
I think for now a perfect match is enough. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:30 PM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; 'XRI TC' > Subject: RE: [xri] subject sets (was: Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT > Thursday 2009-07-16) > > Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote on 2009-07-28: > > I think for our use cases, all we need is for the URI inside the > Subject > > elements to match (using 3986 comparison rules). If one side has a > set > > attribute, the other side must too. > > The same value also, you mean? That's the literal/syntax match I was > referring to, my only question was whether that doesn't rule out the > cases > that would be easy and have value, like the one I was using as an > example. > But allowing for that ratchets up the spec work. > > I agree that syntactic equivalence is simple to specify and immune to > extensions breaking it, yes. > > -- Scott > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]