[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] updated proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF
Mike, You do a fair amount of work to avoid ":" in authority (in xri-subseg-nc and xri-subseg-nc-od). I think we're doing this because ":" has defined semantics in the authority part of a URI. We don't disallow "@", however, which also has a defined meaning for URI authorities, and we don't disallow "@" and ":" in xrefs that appear in an XRI authority. Consequently we have to do some escaping in authority when we go from XRI normal form to IRI normal form to blind out "@" and ":" (along with other characters like "/", "?" and "#" that appear in xrefs). Since we're already allowing ":" in an XRI authority via xref, along with several other characters that can't appear in a URI authority, I'm wondering if we shouldn't go ahead and define authority subsegments in terms of xri-pchar rather than xri-achar and handle ":" in the transform to IRI normal form. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 3:20 PM > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] updated proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF > > Attached is an updated version of the 1.1 ABNF. A number of issues were > raised and discussed on the editor's call yesterday. The new ABNF > addresses all but one of those issues. To summarize, the issues (and > their resolutions) were as follows. > > 1. Concern about allowing the "//" at the beginning of an XRI to be > optional. Resolution: "//" is never optional. Absolute XRIs begin with > "xri://" or with either an xref or gcs character. > > 2. [This is the issue that is still open.] Should multiple xrefs and > characters be allowed to be mixed in a subsegment in the path (the part of > an XRI after the first "/" and before a fragment or query)? E.g., > xri://@foo/(bar)abc(xyz). The issue at stake here is should the path be > left as flexible and loosely-defined as possible, or should the XRI > specification make stronger statements about the syntax and semantics of > segments or sub-segments in the path (and what should that syntax and > semantics be). > > 3. Should production names that refer to sub-segments have "sub" in their > names or is it ok to just call them "segment" productions? Resolution: > replace "segment" in the appropriate productions with "subseg". > > 4. Support for authority-less XRIs. E.g., xri:/foo. Resolution: Remove > support for authority-less XRIs. > > 5. Should we follow 2396bis and disallow "[" and "]" in the query and > fragment productions? Resolution: Follow 2396bis. > > Two errors were also found in the ABNF and have been corrected. The first > allowed an XRI authority that started with an xref to be followed by > arbitrary characters (e.g., xri://(@foo)abc). The second allowed a > subsegment in an XRI authority to be composed of an arbitrary number of > characters and xrefs (e.g., xri://@foo.(@bar)abc(@xyz)def). This second > error is related to issue number 2 above, but such behavior was never > supposed to be allowed in the authority part of an XRI. > > Mike
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]