RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character

["Loren West" <loren.west@epok.net>]

I made the suggestion on purpose.  There is a conference going on,
and a chance to solicit user feedback.  If the users feel more
comfortable with the slash (which I think they will), then there
may not be as much of a disagreement over replacing dot with
bang vs. splat.

=Loren

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] 
Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:38 PM
To: Loren West; Fen Labalme
Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character


But the question at hand is what to do about dot in light of the new
draft of 2396bis. @idcommons/fen is clearly legal, but unless you're
suggesting that there should be no subsegments (i.e. that second level
delimiters should be removed from the spec), then we still have to
settle on a replacement for dot.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loren West [mailto:loren.west@epok.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:33 PM
> To: Loren West; Dave McAlpin; 'Fen Labalme'
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> 
> fwiw - I prefer @idcommons/fen to either bang or splat.  It's
> familiar with the stuff I see every day on the browser line.
> 
> Not as good as fen@idcommons, but better than bang or splat.
> 
> =Loren
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loren West [mailto:loren.west@epok.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:29 PM
> To: 'Dave McAlpin'; 'Fen Labalme'
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> 
> 
> Most users would prefer fen@idcommons over either @idcommons*fen
> or @idcommons!fen.  It "speaks" better, which means they'll
> remember it (and like it) better.
> 
> That may not be an option for us, but we are re-visiting
> the spec, so all options should be re-considered.
> 
> Fen - while you're at it, you should try asking if they prefer
> @idcommons/fen to either of the above.  That works regardless
> of the change to the spec (if any).
> 
> I prefer bang over splat, and admit to printing a "bang name"
> on my business card in the past.
> 
> =Loren
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:04 PM
> To: Fen Labalme
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to jump to a conclusion about bang versus star. Aside
from
> your original proposal, I haven't seen any formally expressed interest
> in star. If there are others who prefer it we should hear from them.
At
> this point, I think, Mike Lindelsee, Peter Davis, Gabe Wachob and I
have
> all expressed a preference for bang. Since it was clearly the leading
> contender, it seemed reasonable to use that when constructing
examples.
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org]
> > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:50 PM
> > To: Dave McAlpin
> > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: Single delegation character
> >
> > Wait a minute - how does '!' have the most support?  I believe
there's
> > four of us (Drummond, Victor, Owen and myself at the least) who
prefer
> > '*' -- not to mention that there is code now using '*'.
> >
> > But we really have to consider the public and not just programmers,
as
> > programmer could care less, or lean towards '!' (I kinda like the
old
> > bang addressing model myself).  But it's *users* who's community
> e-names
> > will be either @idcommons!fen or @idcommons*fen, and from my (albeit
> > informal) user surveys, they overwhelmingly prefer the latter.
> >
> > We'll do another survey this weekend - I'll be comfortable with the
> > results either way.
> >
> > Fen
> >
> >
> > Dave McAlpin wrote:
> > > Since ! seems to have the most current support, I'll use it as a
> > > stand-in for the dot replacement. Parsing XRIs is difficult
because
> of
> > > cross-references. The added complexity of two second level
> delimiters
> > > instead of one is miniscule. I generally understand the argument
> that
> > > since there's a single first level delimiter, there's some
goodness
> in
> > > the parallelism of a single second level delimiter, but it doesn't
> seem
> > > strong enough to be the deciding factor. As for readability, do
you
> > > really prefer xri:@:1!:2!:3 over xri:@:1:2:3?
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >>From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org]
> > >>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:35 AM
> > >>To: Dave McAlpin
> > >>Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >>Subject: Re: [xri] Possible changes to XRI 1.0
> > >>
> > >>Thank you, Dave, for an excellent summary of proposed changes.
One
> > >>omission is the proposal to define '*' as the sole delegation
> > >
> > > character.
> > >
> > >>  This would make parsers easier to write, XRIs easier to read,
and
> > >>plays nicely against the single hierarchy character '/'.  But I'll
> > >
> > > leave
> > >
> > >>further discussion of this point to Drummond.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
of
> the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave_workgroup.php
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
of
> the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-
> open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave_workgroup.php
> .
> 
>