Re: [xri] Property, rel comparison

[Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com>]

What is the benefit of establishing one rule to compare URIs as
'subject' and one for other headings?

Will it improve interop? If it leads people to implement subject
comparison as byte-by-byte, I think not.

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 07:32, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:
> My position on this is simple. XRD is headed into, we hope, extremely wide
> usage. Therefore our URI comparison policy should be whatever has been
> proven in practice to best support interop.
>
> If character-by-character comparison = highest degree of interop, as Scott
> says, then we better have a  good reason to adopt any another policy.
>
> =Drummond
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Scott Cantor <cantor.2@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Drummond Reed wrote on 2010-01-26:
>> > 2) We don't have consensus yet about the best URI comparison approach to
>> > define.
>>
>> The current "default" position IMHO is Breno's statement, but I agree with
>> Eran that we really should be explicit in the text anyway.
>>
>> I'm willing to argue that URIs used solely as identifiers (i.e., not
>> Subject) should be compared like XML namespaces, character for character.
>> Apparently there's pushback on that, so I guess if there's nobody else
>> that
>> agrees with me, I would suggest we add text along the lines that Breno
>> suggested.
>>
>> I will say, again, that I have not seen any significant interop issues
>> arise
>> from using binary comparison because people treat them as constants.
>>
>> -- Scott
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
--Breno

+1 (650) 214-1007 desk
+1 (408) 212-0135 (Grand Central)
MTV-41-3 : 383-A
PST (GMT-8) / PDT(GMT-7)