[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics
As one of the proponents of this proposal (who is finally getting caught up with his vacation email), I'll accept Gabe's invitation to speak up about it. I don't believe this change is "aesthetic" (I agree an aesthetic change could be argued ad infinitum either way.) It is functionally motivated by the following reasons: 1) Having a single second-level separator character simplifies the parsing and interpretation of XRIs (it reduces the number of separator chars from 3 to 2). 2) As Gabe's summary points out, it eliminates any special rules about "implied" reassignable decorators (currently leading dots) in segments. Instead, the rules would now be crystal clear: slashes and stars are separators; the presence of a colon after either one (or a GCS char) indicates the segment is a persistent identifier; the absence of a colon means the segment is a reassignable identifier. 3) The elimination of such special rules simplifies XRI normalization and comparison. 4) This overall simplification of XRI construction also simplifies the development of XRI applications such as XDI. =Drummond --- "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com> wrote: > Loren- > I think the discussion is whether the proposed > change should be adopted. If we take no action, the > change will not be adopted. > As to whether this is an aesthetic-only change, > I'll let the initial proponents of this proposal > speak up. I think it's largely aesthetic, but can see > some technical value in the simplification of > comparison (no need to account for "implied" leading > *'s in segments). > > -Gabe > > > __________________________________________________ > gwachob@visa.com > Chief Systems Architect > Technology Strategies and Standards > Visa International > Phone: +1.650.432.3696 Fax: +1.650.554.6817 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Loren West [mailto:loren.west@epok.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:05 AM > > To: Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics > > > > > > 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 > . > > > > 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. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]