RE: [xri] Draft -07 feedback from another Visa person (responses)

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

Here's my initial responses to the questions:

 

---------

XRI Comments

 

340-341 Why are cross references only absolute?  For simplicity or
        conciseness?  Is this just a nomenclature issue?
        i.e. identifiers (relative, etc) satisfy local
        cross-referencing needs?

 

146     Is scheme interoperability with HTTP a requirement or fringe?

482-483 Scheme also indicates a connection/transport protocol.  In XRI
        this is lost, which eliminates the possibility of inferring a
        default port.  I would argue that you might want to add some
        language here like:
 "Within a federated namespace, the omission of a port may
 indicate a default port.  This use is at the discretion of
 the governing namespace authority (and implementing applications)."

 

511 Is xri a valid URI scheme for an xref?

 

519 Why define global-xri here? I don't see the relevance.

 

521 First use of "node"?  What does it mean in the context of XRI?

 

525 Is this to imply that only when the entire XRI is in () that
 it is unresolvable?  I would presume that XRIs can include
 cross-references in path-segments that are also unresolvable.

 

550-551 I didn't get the meaning of persistent or re-assignable identifiers
 out of this description.

 

2.2.3.1 Is it allowable to escape unicode characters?  For example, if one
 wanted to express an international XRI in IA5 (ASCII)?  In this
 case, the %AB format described in 2.2.3.1 is insufficient to support
 the expanded character width.

 

694 Does the lack od idempotency affect semantics or syntax?  I would
 hope it would only be syntax.

 

2.2.3.3 How about this as an alternative?
     Escape all current escapes (%s).
     Escape all syntactic elements with cross references (parens).
     Escape all parens.

 

878-879 Why are XRI authorities compared in a case-insensitive manner?

 

Section 3   (I still need to do some reading)

 

Global:

 

 Has there been any work on DECODING XRIs?  It's not immediately
 clear from the ABNF that decoding is unambiguous.

 

 In addition, aside from unresolvable references, is it possible
 to canonicalize XRIs?  This is a highly desireable feature
 (for equivalence, at a minimum).

 

 An XRI is not a URI (because of the expanded syntax).  But
 is an URI an XRI?  (no, because of different scheme (xri)).
 I think it would be nice to all URIs be valid XRIs.