Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote on 2010-01-25:
> I think we should incorporate this language because it might not be
obvious
> to developers who are not likely to study the Web Linking spec. Since we
> have a dependency on Web Linking, we will have to wait for it to get
> published as an RFC (at least approved by the IESG), and if this changes,
we
> will follow.
>
> BTW, I have an open issue with the above text because I think "compared
> as URIs" is poorly defined (is http://example.com/rel the same as
> http://example.com:80/rel?).
That's why I don't agree with using URL normalization rules to compare URIs
that are intended as identifiers. I think binary comparison is much easier
and much more likely to produce interop. It has certainly worked that way in
SAML.
I didn't push on it because I had the impression that everybody wanted URL
normalization, but I personally would argue for not doing that where
possible.
-- Scott
