URL equality

• Mail folder: WWW Talk Jan 94-present
• Previous message: Roy T. Fielding: "Re: URL decisions in Seattle, & changes "

Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 23:15:24 --100
Message-id: <199403312113.NAA17573@osiris.ac.hmc.edu>
Errors-To: listmaster@www0.cern.ch
Reply-To: Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu
Originator: www-talk@info.cern.ch
Sender: www-talk@www0.cern.ch
Precedence: bulk
From: Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <www-talk@www0.cern.ch>
Subject: URL equality
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
Content-Length: 1220

[discussing how to define URL equality via the URL syntax]

Larry> the same host might have multiple DNS names, or that some FTP servers
Larry> allow case insensitive file names, any number of actual equivalences,
Larry> symbolic links, etc.

Dan> None of these things should be part of the URL spec. [...]  Given the
Dan> definition of equality I proposed, http://host:80/ is different from
Dan> http://host/. The fact that they resolve to the same thing is not part
Dan> of the URL spec.

I must agree that we should avoid burdening the syntax with any conception
of equality beyond string equality.  In the long run, if one wished to
checked for equality, one should check the associated URNs/URSNs.

If two URLs point to the same resource, all that signifies is there are two
ways to access the resource (two _locations_, if you will).  URLs should be
concerned (almost) exclusively with access, not naming.

--
Jared Rhine         Jared_Rhine@hmc.edu
wibstr              Harvey Mudd College
                    http://www.hmc.edu/www/people/jared.html

"To hear many religious people talk, one would think God created the
 torso, head, legs and arms, but the devil slapped on the genitals."
        -- Don Schrader