OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[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]