RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics

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

Is there any technical basis for this change?

Issue #1 is easy for me because there's a technical reason that we 
chose the wrong character.  Issue #2 seems to be purely aesthetics
as it works equally both ways.

So - are we discussing which one we think is aesthetically more
pleasing?

I have an opinion as to which one I prefer, but that opinion pales
in comparison to my opinion on changing the specification for
aesthetic purposes only.

=Loren

-----Original Message-----
From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:44 AM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics


I'm attempting to summarize the issue here - if you feel I'm misstating it,
please chime in.  

Issue 1: There is some desire to clarify the semantics of "*"... If we
convert to using "*" instead of ".", there was a feeling that we should
change the semantics of '*', to make it a pure separator, instead of a
separator and a decorator (indicating reassignability). 

In XRI 1.0, both : and * are separators and decorators. That is, they both
indicate that the following token is a subsegment, and that reassignability
of a following subsegment. 

The proposal here is to convert * to a pure separator and : to a pure
decorator. That is, all subsegments are delimited by * and persistent
subsegments begin with a :... 

XRI 1.0: xri+example/degenerate
XRI 1.1: xri+example/degenerate

XRI 1.0:  xri:+example.simple/:45:45:34
XRI 1.1: xri:+example*simple/*:45*:45*:34

XRI 1.0: xri:+example.simple/another.segment:43:55
XRI 1.1: xri:+example*simple/another*segment*:43*:55

Note that persistent segments get an extra character, whereas reassignable
segments don't get an extra character (and of course, the "." turns to "*").


One advantage is that subsegments are dilineated only by "*", so visual
parsing becomes simpler, and (more importantly), there is no need for an
implied leading "*" at the beginning of a "/" segment, making comparisons
somewhat simpler. 

The question is, assuming we pick "*" as the delimiter (we'll still need to
vote on that though I haven't heard much discussion against "*" recently),
do we use this new interpretation of "*" and the new syntax it implies.

Feedback welcomed. If I don't hear *any* discussion, I'll try to move to a
vote as soon as is fair. 

Look for a vote on the "*" character replacing the "." soon as well. 

	-Gabe
 
__________________________________________________ 
gwachob@visa.com
Chief Systems Architect
Technology Strategies and Standards
Visa International 
Phone: +1.650.432.3696   Fax: +1.650.554.6817


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
.