RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics

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

On the topic of parser simplicity, three people
on this list, all of whom have actually written a parser
believe that it's just as simple one way or the other.

I believe we haven't heard from anyone who's written
a parser because they'd be hard pressed to describe why
there's a significant difference.

Combining separation and decoration characteristics is
a well established pattern in identifiers and parsing.  We use 
that pattern elsewhere in XRI with the "?" character which serves
as both a separator and decorator.  I believe with a single
second-level separator we may have to precede the "?" with 
a "*".

Combining separation and decoration is usually considered
a visual simplification.  It has insignificant development
and processing cost, but cuts the number of characters
needed to communicate the same thing - in half.

=Loren

-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 5:55 PM
To: Dave McAlpin; Wachob, Gabe; Loren West; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics


First, there is a difference of opinion that "the
difference between the two options we are discussing
is negligable" when it comes to the simplicity of XRI
parsing. I invite other implementers to comment on the
simplicity of parsing two vs. three XRI separator
characters.

On the second point, it is absolutely unacceptable to
require all human-friendly, reassignable XRIs to
include the star character. That would directly
conflict with the requirement of human-friendly,
reassignable XRIs being as simple and easy to remember
as possible.

=Drummond