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 <> 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
