that ess in 'https'

Peter Davis peter.davis at
Tue Jun 27 17:27:06 UTC 2006

On 6/27/2006 12:03 AM, "Jonathan Daugherty" <cygnus at> wrote:

>> I thought we were trying to decide whether we should adopt the
>> convention that pairs of URLs like the following two URLs, when used
>> as identity URLs, are equivalent: identify the same persona.
> I've said this before: whether these identity URLs are equivalent is a
> decision
> best left up to the parties serving and / or controlling both URLs.  If you
> want one URL to be equivalent to the other -- at least in OpenID land -- you
> set up a redirect.

Might I suggest that this decision is best left to RFC 3986, which lays out
clearly normalization rules for URIs.  Doing otherwise, I think, will lead
to madness and mayhem.  If implementations presently do not support this,
than it's a problem with the implementation, I think, and should be fixed
there, not grafted into a specification.

Additional processing gleaned from RFC 3986 also help with things like case
normalization :
    For example, the URI <HTTP://> is
    equivalent to <>

And also:
    For example, an application using this [ Syntax-Based Normalization]
    approach could reasonably consider the following two URIs equivalent:


    Web user agents, such as browsers, typically apply this type of URI
    normalization when determining whether a cached response is

And FWIW, and are not equivalent.

My 2cents

=peterd  ( )

More information about the yadis mailing list