Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add URI Normalization #22

Open
kjetilk opened this issue Jul 31, 2019 · 4 comments
Open

Add URI Normalization #22

kjetilk opened this issue Jul 31, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

@kjetilk
Copy link
Member

kjetilk commented Jul 31, 2019

URI Normalization is needed for consistency when comparing URIs.

RFC3986 gives some guidelines, but it is hardly enough, as we already noticed with the http vs https debate that we had because of breakage with vocabs that were being loaded. It is also extremely important for components that do any kind of query that they agree on how to tell if to URIs refer to the same resource. Another field where it is important is with HTTP proxies, if one proxy has a different idea of a resource than the server behind it, it could lead to very strange bugs, even security failures if the proxy and the server doesn't agree on what ACL applies to which resource.

We cannot eliminate false negatives but we should minimize their impact by being strict when we can.

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Jul 5, 2021

Case: solid/web-access-control-spec#93

@kjetilk
Copy link
Member Author

kjetilk commented Jul 26, 2021

Agreed; we should be careful though given that RDF considers equivalent but syntactically different IRIs as entirely different IRIs.

Indeed, RDF is very strict on this point, perhaps overly so (link for easy reference).

This makes it a somewhat difficult problem to address on the spec side, as we need to ensure that implementations do normalization before it enters an RDF representation.

@csarven
Copy link
Member

csarven commented Apr 28, 2022

solid/vocab#20 (comment)

@woutermont
Copy link
Contributor

woutermont commented Sep 14, 2023

@csarven, I propose to take this issue (and the related #347) up in the milestone for v0.11. As long as we specify Solid's handling of identifiers, there should be no problem, so it is important to do so.

I will do a proposal based on the relevant specs and the conversation table sketch of #347, to get the conversation going again.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants