Hi
Andrew,
I read the document
and I would like to better understand why the proposed
solution does not face the same difficulties mentioned in SCC14N,
Section 5.4, in relation to the canonicalization of anyURI (difficulties that
convinced SCC14N to give up on the idea of canonicalizing anyURI). Here is
what the SCC14N spec says:
"... it is
reasonable to ask whether a canonical lexical representation for data of type
anyURI should be specified. This, however, is a difficult if not insurmountable
task. Many of the details of an appropriate canonicalization (such as
case-mapping or case-folding) are inherently scheme-specific, and it is
intrinsically impossible for any one Schema Centric Canonicalization
implementation to understand the universe of possible URI schemes it might
encounter (and so canonicalize them all appropriately). Even for some commonly
known URI schemes, the relevant specifications lack crisp clarity on some
germane issues. And the algorithm of §5.2 of RFC2396 can (see ibid, §5.1) only
be carried out in the context of a specific base URI; as generally speaking such
relevant base URI may be application-level notions not represented in XML, the
algorithm of §5.2 must remain out of scope so far as XML canonicalization is
concerned."
Is the fact that
your proposal is limited to the "uddi" URI scheme sufficient to eliminate all
the difficulties mentioned above?
Thank
you,
Ugo
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Hately
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 9:51
AM
To:
Subject: [uddi-spec]
Change request for handling of keys in V3
Luc and Tom,
Please accept this attached change request for the UDDI
V3 specification.
I would like to
have discussion of this item added to the agenda for next weeks
meeting.
Thanks.
Andrew Hately
IBM Software
Solutions and Strategy
UDDI Development, http://uddi.ibm.com/
Email:
