[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Relative XRIs
Works for me. I'll take a look at the ABNF and see what needs to be changed to support this. Mike >-----Original Message----- >From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] >Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:37 PM >To: 'Dave McAlpin'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [xri] Relative XRIs > >I noticed the same thing in my review but didn't flag it. The >one place we diverge from IRI and URI is in the rules around >the opening "//". > > > >I would be in favor of realigning the XRI 2.0 rules so that >for an absolute XRI: > > > >1) "xri:" (the scheme name) is optional, > > > >AND > > > >2) IF an XRI starts with a GCS character, then "//" is also >optional (i.e., the scheme name plus the "//" can be left >off). If the XRI does not start with a GCS character, then >"//" is not optional. > > > >But by these rules the "//" can always be included. > > > >Mike, is this cool with you? > > > >=Drummond > > > >________________________________ > >From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] >Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:01 PM >To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: [xri] Relative XRIs > > > >There's probably a good reason for this, but why is >"//www.epok.net" a valid relative reference as a URI and IRI >but not as an XRI? > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]