FW: Extension Relation Type Comparison - LC Comment ondraft-nottingham-http-plink-header-07

Mark has indicated below that his intention was to compare relation type URIs without allowing normalization. This is consistent with my views and I hope will be clarified in the next revision.

We should close this issue tomorrow on the call and move forward with the next CD.

EHL

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:28 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
Cc: 
Subject: Re: Extension Relation Type Comparison - LC Comment on draft-nottingham-http-plink-header-07


On 26/01/2010, at 4:03 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

> The current text about comparing extension relation types is unclear:
> 
>   When extension relation types are compared, they MUST be compared as
>   URIs in a case-insensitive fashion, character-by-character.  Because
>   of this, all-lowercase URIs SHOULD be used for extension relations.
> 
> What does it mean "compared as URIs"?
> 
> It is clear that these two URIs would be deemed equivalent:
> 
> http://example.com/rel/type
> HTTP://example.COM/rel/TYPE
> 
> But are they also equivalent to:
> 
> http://example.com:80/rel/type

None of those are equivalent; it specifies case-insensitive, character-by-character. "As URIs" alludes to the fact that an extension type might be serialised in a non-URI form; e.g., as a CURIE, if that's your cup of tea. 

I'll try to clarify this in the next draft.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/