[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] * and / discussion
> Drummond says: > > In terms of "chunking", or more technically, "segmentation", it seems like > there are two approaches we can take. > > 1) Keep the current 1.0 segmentation hierarchy, i.e., divide XRIs into slash > segments first, then divide slash segments into star subsegments (or star > and colon subsegments). > > 2) Or, as I'm arguing, make it even simpler by just defining two syntactic > segment types - slash segments and star segments - and then let XRI > applications use them as they wish. In this approach, XRI resolution would > be one such application, and that application would define star segments > before the first slash to be authority delegation. I fail to see how #2 is simpler. Everyone understands segments and sub-segments in URIs, and that concept works well within XRIs (and URI translated XRIs). It's a single hierarchy model. You're suggesting there be multiple hierarchies built into the identifier itself - that it represents a "web" of information. It is a novel concept, but I argue that you're trying to do too much with the identifier. Could you explain what's broken in XRI, and why it shouldn't be fixed using a more familiar approach? =Loren
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]