[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on XRI Syntax Draft 10
|
Gabe, Excellent feedback. I will merge these
changes into the final voting draft that I will post Thursday afternoon. Anyone else on the TC doing a review of Working
Draft 10 (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14836/xri-syntax-V2.0-wd-10.doc),
please send your feedback by-line-number to the list before Also, another reminder that there will be
ONLY ONE TC meeting this week, and that will be the OFFICIAL meeting at Please make sure you can attend – we
will hold the vote as close to the start of the meeting as possible. Thanks, =Drummond From: Wachob, Gabe
[mailto:gwachob@visa.com] Dave & Drummond- I looked through the -10 version
with a focus on areas that were changed and had just a very few bits of
feedback Line 139 - the word "community" is not used before
this line. I'd just say "..to be used to specify an XRI authority" (or
"XRI root authority"). Line 266 - The URL should probably point to the http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xri/V2.0
URL Line 325 - (also Line 343 - table 1) - I think the word
"authority" is being used a little sloppily here. In IRI & URI
specs, "authority" means a syntactic construct - a BNF production. In
Table 1, the descriptions of the various GCS's talks about authorities as
organizations who exert control. I think its better to stick to the IRI/URI
definition. I'd change the text in the tables to the following (text changes
apply to the "Establishes Global Context For" column: For =: Identifiers for whom the authority is controlled by
an individual person For @: Identifiers for whom the authority is controlled by
an organization. For +: Identifiers for whom there is no centralized control
of the authority, or for whom the authority is controlled by general use. For
example, generic dictionary concepts, "tags", etc. For $: Identifiers for whom the authority is controllede by
a specification from a standards body. For example, other ... Line 781 - RFC 4234 has just been published (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4234.txt)
which obsoletes RFC 2234 - This updates the ABNF specification. I don't know if
we want to go there - I don't know what changes are in 4234 and whether they
affect our BNF. If anyone is up for *heroic* effort, they could look at RFC
4234 and see if we can just reference it instead of RFC 2234... -Gabe
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]