Re: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump

[Peter C Davis <peter.davis@neustar.biz>]

esp. considering it is inconsistant within the same spec, i'd concure 
w/drummond, that it is errata.

=peterd

Drummond Reed wrote:
> I realize that Appendix A is normative, but this is simply errata.
> 
>  
> 
> =Drummond
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 8:44 PM
> To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org; 
> xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
> 
>  
> 
> Are you sure it?s pure errata? I realize it?s easy enough to figure out 
> what was intended, but it looks like a normative change to me.
> 
>  
> 
> Dave
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 5:09 AM
> To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org; 
> xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
> 
>  
> 
> Speaking of erratta, in writing another document that references the 
> Syntax spec, I noticed that we forgot to roll one of the final changes 
> we made to the ABNF in the main doc into the collected ABNF in Appendix A.
> 
>  
> 
> It's on line 852/3 it currently says:
> 
>  
> 
> xri-gen-delims    = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "("
>                   / ")" / "*" / gcs-char
> 
>  
> 
> It should match lines 223/4:
> 
>  
> 
>   xri-gen-delims   = ":" / "/" / "?" / "#" / "[" / "]" / "(" / ")"
>                 / "*" / "!" / rgcs-char
> 
> This is pure erratta, but we need to roll it in too.
> 
>  
> 
> =Drummond
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:47 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org; xri-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
> 
>  
> 
> These don't sound like changes requiring a new draft, but if we do have 
> a new draft, they should get integrated.
> 
>  
> 
>     -Gabe
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> From: Jerome Jump [mailto:Jerome.Jump@epok.net]
> Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:51 AM
> To: Wachob, Gabe
> Cc: Chetan Sabnis; Dave McAlpin
> Subject: XRI Resolution V2.0
> 
> Gabe,
> 
>      In reviewing Committee Draft 01, 14 March 2005 of the Extensible 
> Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution V2.0, I came across the following:
> 
>  
> 
> 1)       On line 864:  I believe the constructed XRI should be ?xri: 
> //@example2?? instead of ?xri://=example2??.  This is because the 
> external synonym (line 859) contains an ?@?, not an ?=?.  Or, change 
> line 859 so that it says ?xri://=example2?.  In any case, the two should 
> be consistent.
> 
> 2)       A lot of the XML, while correct, should be reformatted for 
> easier reading by a human.
> 
>  
> 
>      Other than that, the specs look pretty good.
> 
>  
> 
> -Jerome M. Jump
> 
> Epok, Inc
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.1 - Release Date: 4/1/2005
>