OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: GCS chars and star in XRI authority resolution


My preference would be to stick to a completely regular syntax.  I.e., always prefix the sub-segment that follows the GCS char with a "*" or a "!", but I realize that this won't be satisfactory for many others, so I think we should stick with xri 1.0 rules/syntax wrt this issue and allow any of:

   xri:@foo
   xri:@!foo
   xri:@*foo

where xri:@foo is equivalent to xri:@*foo.

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 3:15 PM
> To: Lindelsee, Mike ; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: GCS chars and star in XRI authority resolution
> 
> 
> Per the question Mike raises: "The inclusion (or not) of the 
> delimiter that
> indicates reassignability or persistence in the sub-segment that gets
> resolved is something that we'll still need to discuss as we revisit
> resolution for 1.1."
> 
> I'd like to propose something I think will make both 
> equivalence and XRI
> authority resolution simpler in 1.1.
> 
> Per the BNF I just posted following Dave's suggestion, a GCS-rooted
> authority segment would be:
> 
> GCS-authority    =  gcs-char [ "!" / "*" ] [ nz-segment ]
> 
> Therefore a GCS char can be followed by either an nz-segment, 
> or !, or *. So
> the following are all legal:
> 
> @foo
> @*foo
> @!foo
> 
> In XRI 1.0 we treated "@foo" and "@*foo" as equivalent. We 
> said the * was
> "assumed" with any GCS char. 
> 
> In XRI 1.1 I'd propose that we simplify things in one of two ways:
> 
> OPTION 1: BY NOT DEFINING GCS-CHAR AND GCS-CHAR* AS EQUIVALENT
> 
> Instead, the rules would be that:
> 
> 1) By default, the nz-segment following a GCS char is reassignable.
> 2) In XRI authority resolution, if EITHER ! or * preceed an 
> nz-sub-segment,
> they are treated as part of the nz-sub-segment from the standpoint of
> resolution, i.e., are part of the value being resolved.
> 
> By these rules, @foo, @*foo, and @!foo are all different 
> values. "foo" is a
> reassignable sub-segment in both "@foo" and "@*foo" by definition, but
> "@foo" and "@*foo" are not equivalent.
> 
> OPTION 2: BY NOT ALLOWING * DIRECTLY AFTER A GCS CHAR
> 
> In ths option, the BNF would be:
> 
> GCS-authority    =  gcs-char [ "!" ] [ nz-segment ]
> 
> Again, the same two rules proposed in Option 1 would apply. 
> Only now you can
> just have "@foo" and "@!foo", because "@*foo" is illegal.
> 
> I believe this is actually the option most consistent with 
> the rule that by
> default, the nz-sub-segment following a GCS char is 
> reassignable, because it
> means that the * is already inherent in the GCS char, just 
> the way it is
> inherent in a slash (reassignable sub-segment being the default after
> slash).
> 
> Which do folks prefer?
> 
> =Drummond 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 2:10 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and 
> issues analysis
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I'm not clear which XRI ABNF you are asking your questions 
> with respect to.
> I don't believe that the XRI below (xri:@example*:23:45) 
> would be valid
> using XRI 1.0 syntax ('*' is only allowed as a GCS character 
> in 1.0).  The
> XRI also wouldn't be valid in the original 1.1 ABNF ('*' and ':' can't
> follow one another). It would be valid in the various 
> iterations of the ABNF
> that Dave, Drummond and I have been discussing on the list -- 
> though the
> interpretation of the sub-segments might be slightly 
> different between the
> various iterations.
> 
> The latest proposal would break the XRI up as follows:
> 
> 1:  @
> 2:  *example   (reassignable sub-segment - and showing 
> implicit delimiter)
> 3:  *:23:45    (reassignable sub-segment)
> 
> The inclusion (or not) of the delimiter that indicates 
> reassignability or
> persistence in the sub-segment that gets resolved is 
> something that we'll
> still need to discuss as we revisit resolution for 1.1.
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barnhill William [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 11:03 AM
> > To: Lindelsee, Mike 
> > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and 
> > issues analysis
> > 
> > 
> > Looks good to me as well, but some questions...
> > (1) Is this XRI valid? xri:@example*:23:45
> > (2) If valid, would it represent 4 resolution steps:
> > 1:   @
> > 2:     .example
> > 3:        *:23
> > 4:           *:45
> > With the '. on 1: and the '*' on 4 being implicitly stated.
> > 
> > (3) If the above XRI is suppose to respresent 4 resolution 
> > steps do not 
> > the new rules result in only 3 steps? As :23:45 would be 
> > considered one 
> > segment.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Bill Barnhill
> > 
> 
> 
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]