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:]
> 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
> 
>