[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] URI/IRI/XRI - what should extend what?
Marty's suggestion is for XRI to be defined as a URI scheme, and is therefore restricted to US-ASCII only. IRI takes care of internationalizing it. I can see the benefits of it in terms of adoptability. The downsides are: 1. Currently, URI normal form needs to escape xrefs beyond recognition so as to survive URI parsers. This would mean we will forever be living in ugly-hell URI normal form. 2. That is a drastic change - we might have to call it XRI Syntax 3.0. =wil (http://xri.net/=wil) > -----Original Message----- > From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:07 PM > To: 'Schleiff, Marty'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] URI/IRI/XRI - what should extend what? > > What I hear is this: > > You want to be able to say: > > 1) If you are just doing us-ascii, then you can ignore implementing any > IRI > stuff at all > > 2) If you are doing XRI with more characters, then use something like IRI > on > top of XRI - something we'd have to define since XRI syntax (in XRI normal > form) is a superset of URI - that is a legal us-ascii XRI in XRI normal > form > may not be a legal URI. > > What we can say today is: > > 1) If you all you are doing today is us-ascii XRIs, then you can ignore > implementing any IRI stuff at all (but this is only "partial > implementation" > of the XRI spec - since we don't define "us-ascii-only XRIs") > > 2) If you are doing anything other than us-ascii XRIs, then you have to do > IRI processing after XRI normalization. > > I don't see that what you are saying is actually all that more attractive > over what we can say today. The only change we might want to add is a note > saying that you can ignore all the IRI stuff if you don't care about > working > with anything but us-ascii characters... (we'd have to actually confirm > that in detail, but I'm fairly sure). > > Would that satisfy your need/interest/want/desire? > > -Gabe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 4:17 PM > > To: Gabe Wachob; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [xri] URI/IRI/XRI - what should extend what? > > > > Hi Gabe (& All), > > > > I'll try again. > > > > If we say XRI is a URI scheme, then we can focus on ASCII-only. I think > > we can (almost) ignore IRI and its issues, just like I think http is > > oblivious to IRI. > > > > So the folks who aren't English-speakers can use IRI to represent their > > XRIs just like they use IRI to represent their http URIs. > > > > Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP > > Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist > > Computing Security Infrastructure > > (206) 679-5933 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 12:02 PM > > > To: Schleiff, Marty; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [xri] URI/IRI/XRI - what should extend what? > > > > > > Marty- > > > I think you may have a misconception about all these things. > > > > > > First, URI's are defined with US-ASCII only. If you > > > don't do US-ASCII, you don't do URI's. > > > So the folks who aren't Engish-speakers decided they > > > wanted to play in the URI world and so they defined IRI. IRI > > > is basically just the way of encoding the full range of UTF-8 > > > characters into URI-legal strings. > > > > > > So if we don't leverage IRI, we just have to rewrite > > > IRI. I don't see any point in that. > > > > > > If you want to support XRI, you have to support the > > > full set of internationalized characters, and the easiest way > > > to do that is to use IRI libraries which are pretty > > > ubiquitous now. There are a lot of Unicode corner cases and > > > I'm fairly certain not everyone handles all of Unicode correctly. > > > But this is one of those areas where 99.99% of the cases are > > > handled correctly and we should be happy with that. > > > > > > So, I'm not sure its really a big deal for a vendor to > > > support URI and not IRI. And if they don't want to support > > > IRI, then they *really* won't want to support XRI. > > > > > > -Gabe > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Schleiff, Marty [mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 9:28 AM > > > > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > Subject: [xri] URI/IRI/XRI - what should extend what? > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > The XRI Syntax spec describes IRI as extending the character set of > > > > URI, and then describes XRI as extending the syntactic > > > elements (but > > > > not the character set) of IRI. If I were a product vendor, it would > > > > sound to me like in order to support XRI, my products would > > > first (or > > > > also) have to support IRI. I might think IRI support sounds complex > > > > with lots of implications to my install base, so if I decide not to > > > > support IRI it also means I wouldn't be supporting XRI. > > > > To me it seems like IRI adds lots of complexity to XRI. I'd rather > > > > just say XRI is a URI scheme, restricted to UTF-8 like any > > > other URI. > > > > In XRI let's not even worry about other encodings. When > > > international > > > > characters are needed in an XRI, then the IRI spec deals > > > with how to > > > > do it. Let's leave the complexity in the IRI spec. Of > > > course we could > > > > include a section in the XRI Syntax spec that gives > > > examples of how to > > > > convert a URI with a scheme of xri:// into an IRI according to the > > > > steps described in RFC 3987. > > > > I put this idea on the wiki (item #3.11 under XRI Syntax). > > > > > > > > Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP > > > > Associate Technical Fellow - Cyber Identity Specialist Computing > > > > Security Infrastructure > > > > (206) 679-5933 > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]