[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics
That's not how I read it. Drummond seemed to conclude that 'establishing the syntactic "equal footing" of * and / for the purpose of enabling the expression of peer-to-peer linking vs. hierarchical relationships' was not only possible but useful and desirable. And while I agree with Victor (and everyone) that :3*:4 is ugly, the beauty is in the clarity of purpose. In the persistent e-number above, it is clear that :3 is a persistent e-number that is delegating to :4. And as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, we are fortunate that only in very rare circumstances will people find themselves confronted with such an XRI. Fen Dave McAlpin wrote: > I could be mistaken, but I thought Drummond concluded by the end of that > thread that making star and slash equivalent separators wasn't feasible, > and that star was always a second level separator, subordinate to slash. > > Dave > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Victor Grey [mailto:victor@idcommons.org] > *Sent:* Thu 7/8/2004 1:17 AM > *To:* xri@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* Re: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics > > Wachob, Gabe wrote: > > As to whether this is an aesthetic-only change, I'll let the initial > > proponents of this proposal speak up. I think its largely aesthetic > > I don't think anyone is claiming it's an aesthetic change. Au > contraire, it's somewhat uglier. In my mind the crucial point is the > philosophical/worldview imperative that Drummond wrote about on 6/11 > (quoted below) - the need to highlight the distinction between a > hierarchical relationship and a peer relationship. > > -Victor Grey
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]