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] Proposal for XRI Syntax 2.1 to treat all delimiters as signficant


I think this was meant to be a question to the TC.  If we are to make
()'s optional in cross references (or various refs as they are currently
being termed) should there be precedence or normalization rules such
that cross references without parenthesis are equivalent to cross
references with parenthesis.  For instance should these be the same?
	> #1A $(http://example.com)=gmb
	> #1B $(http://example.com)*(=gmb)
It seems to me that if we say that the second instance of a GCS
character is the start of a cross reference than it should be the same
as an explicit cross reference with ()'s.


contact: =les
sip: =les/(+phone)
chat: =les/skype/chat
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 2:50 AM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] Proposal for XRI Syntax 2.1 to treat all delimiters as
> signficant
> 
> On the TC telecon last Thursday, I received the following action item:
> 
> # DRUMMOND to send an email to the list summarizing a proposal that in
XRI
> Syntax 2.1 all delimiters and parentheses be considered syntactically
> significant.
> 
> The following examples were discussed on the telecon and are now
listed on
> the http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriCd02/GlobalRefs page.
> 
> #1A $(http://example.com)=gmb
> #1B $(http://example.com)*(=gmb)
> #1C $(http://example.com)!(=gmb)
> 
> #2A $(http://example.com)=gmb*sub1
> #2B $(http://example.com)*(=gmb*sub1)
> #2C $(http://example.com)!(=gmb*sub1)
> 
> #3A $(http://example.com)*(=gmb)*sub1
> #3B $(http://example.com)*(=gmb)!sub1
> 
> #4A $(http://example.com)*((=gmb))
> #4B $(http://example.com)*(((=gmb)))
> 
> The essence of the proposal is that while it is very clear that many
XRI
> authorities MAY assign XRIs #1A/B/C to the same resource, or #2A/B/C
to
> the
> same resource, or #3A/B to the same resource, or #4A/B to the same
> resource,
> it is also clear that SOME XRI authorities MAY NOT consider these
> equivalent
> due to the additional metadata they contain.
> 
> In other words, while SOME XRI authorites MAY declare these XRIs
> synonymous
> by local policy in their own namespaces, other XRI authorities may
declare
> them as non-synonymous in their namespaces.
> 
> In order to preserve the right of the latter set of XRI authorities to
> treat
> these XRIs as non-synonymous, the XRI Syntax 2.1 specification MUST
treat
> all delimiters as significant. Therefore synonymity between XRIs that
> differ
> only in the delimiters used may only be established via local policy
or
> resolution.
> 
> =Drummond



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]