[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis
I'm sorry I haven't tracked this very closely, but I think we should define two categories of delimiters - those whose semantics we define (xri-gen-delims) and those we reserve as delimiters but whose semantics are undefined (xri-sub-delims).
-----Original Message-----
From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Wed 8/18/2004 7:20 PM
To: Dave McAlpin; 'Lindelsee, Mike '; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis
Agreed. Then, Dave, do you agree with Mike's suggestion of creating a new
"delims" category for xri-auth-delims?
I'm beginning to wonder if the generalized treatment of subsegments in the
proposed XRI 1.1 path is worth the trouble. Would it be simpler to just
define * and ! as the two sub-delimins and then let the other subdelims be
part of the path? That way they will be available for all producer-specific
algorithms anyway
Mike, do you think it would be simpler to just have an "xri-path-delim"
production for * and ! ? In that case the XRI authority segment and the path
segments could go back to being the same.
Mike, one thing that occurred to me this morning: we can't eliminate null
subsegments in the XRI authority segment without knocking out using ! after
a GCS character (e.g., "@!1234"), as by the current BNF, ! is proceeded by a
null subsegment. We'd either have to otherwise change the BNF to support
that (taking us back into "decorator" land) or simply have tight resolution
rules about null subsegments.
=Drummond
_____
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 2:51 PM
To: Lindelsee, Mike ; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis
Unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, I'd suggest that we move
"*" and "!" back to xri-gen-delims.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
Sent: Wed 8/18/2004 1:13 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis
Do you think that we should place "*" and "!" in gen-delims then? Or are my
proposed changes ok as they stand?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:58 AM
To: Lindelsee, Mike ; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis
I intentionally included xri-sub-delims in xri-pchar, and this was correct
in the original ABNF. Since then, someone moved sub-segment delimiters from
xri-gen-delims to xri-sub-delims. I think this is just a misunderstanding of
what I intended for xri-sub-delims. The idea (borrowed from 2396bis), is
that xri-gen-delims are delimiters for which we define semantics and are
reserved for the purpose defined in the spec. In contrast, xri-sub-delims
are reserved as delimiters with no defined semantics, intended for processor
specific algorithms.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [ mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
Sent: Tue 8/17/2004 4:23 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis
I've taken a look at the proposed ABNF and would like to recommend a couple
of changes. First, I think we should be relatively strict in the authority
part and restrict the segment delimiters to only those that are valid
delimiters. My concern is that showing other delimeters in the authority
part will imply to people reading the ABNF that those delimiters might have
some sort of meaning. The second change is to remove the support for null
segments in the authority part. While there is an XDI use for null segments
in the path part, it doesn't seem to be needed in the authority part. And
not allowing null segments in the authority part helps to keep resolution as
simple as possible.
I also noticed what might be a bug -- the inclusion of xri-sub-delims in the
xri-pchar production. This allows segment delimiters to be embedded within
segments. I don't think that this makes sense (Dave, please correct me if
I'm wrong on this).
Mike
Proposed changes to the updated XRI ABNF
----------------------------------------
(change) xri-sub-delims = xri-auth-delims / xri-path-delims
(add) xri-auth-delims = "!" / "*"
(add) xri-path-delims = "&" / ":" / ";" / "," / "'"
(remove) xri-segment = sub-segment *( xri-sub-delims
sub-segment )
(add) xri-auth-segment = auth-sub-segment *(
xri-auth-delims auth-sub-segment )
(add) xri-path-segment = path-sub-segment *(
xri-sub-delims path-sub-segment )
(change) XRI-authority = ( gcs-char [ xri-auth-segment ] ) /
xref-authority
(change) relative-path = xri-path-segment * ( "/" xri-path-segment
) [ "?" xri-query ]
[ "#" xri-fragment ]
(change) xref-authority = xref *( xri-auth-delims auth-sub-segment
)
(remove) sub-segment = ( *xri-pchar / xref )
(add) auth-sub-segment = ( 1*xri-pchar / xref )
(add) path-sub-segment = ( *xri-pchar / xref )
(change-bug)xri-pchar = xri-unreserved / pct-encoded
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]