Re: PaceFeedEquivalence

[Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:24:36 -0700, Tim Bray <tim.bray@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> While the objective is fine, I don't believe we need a separate section
> on Feed Equivalence.  I propose:
> 
> (1) a note in both the Format and Protocol specs saying "when testing
> URIs for equivalence, implementors should consider the discussion in
> RFC2396bis section 6."  (currently
> http://gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rev-2002/rfc2396bis.html#comparison).

Note that this is the first time we are actively tying ourselves to
2396bis (as opposed to PaceUriOrItsSuccessor, which only allowed us to
inherit it when it was ready).

Furthermore, are you rejecting Norman Walsh's proposal that "matches"
and "matching" be more specifically defined as per Section 6.2.1
"Simple String Comparison" of 2396bis?

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark