Subject: 4.2.7.1 Comparing atom:id

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 22:05:54 +0200

<http://atompub.org/2005/04/18/draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.html#rfc.section.4.2.7.1>

I was wondering about:

# Likewise,
#
#     http://www.example.com/~bob
#     http://www.example.com/%7ebob
#     http://www.example.com/%7Ebob
#
# are three distinct identifiers, because IRI %-escaping is significant
# for the purposes of comparison.

s/significant/insignificant/?

-- 
  Anne van Kesteren
  <http://annevankesteren.nl/>

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 23:13:31 +0200

> s/significant/insignificant/?

I see I might have misinterpreted the prose. If so, I think it is not 
very clear. Can't we just say something that atom:id IRIs MUST NOT be 
normalized?

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 17:35:31 -0400

> very clear. Can't we just say something that atom:id IRIs MUST NOT be

I think the last paragraph of RFC3987, section 5.1 already says that :)

http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 09:09:56 +0200

> http://rfc.net/rfc3987.html#s5.1.

That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true 
for Atom? Are we going to refer to that specification and that section 
from 4.2.7.1 in a future draft?

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 07:29:50 -0400

On 5/22/05, Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]> wrote:
> for Atom? 

Where does is say that?

> Are we going to refer to that specification and that section

---

From: Anne van Kesteren <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 14:56:14 +0200

>>That also says that fragment components should be excluded. Is that true

Sorry about that. I should read better before sending in questions.

As you've probably noticed I referred to paragraph three of that 
section, but it talks about network retrieval. Paragraph four really 
applies to what we are talking about here...

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 18:18:42 +0900

for Atom?

It says:
    When IRIs are compared to
    select (or avoid) a network action, such as retrieval of a
    representation, fragment components (if any) should be excluded from
    the comparison.

IDs are just identifiers, not used for network action, so this doesn't
apply.

Regards,    Martin.

 >Are we going to refer to that specification and that section from 4.2.7.1 
in a future draft?