[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Relative values in cross references
Marty, Good question. When the TC discussed this
question back in XRI 2.0, we concluded that parenthetical cross-references are
fundamentally a way of supporting polyarchical identifiers (identifiers that
cross hierarchies), and since both absolute and relative identifiers can be
polyarchical, we wanted to support both forms. The challenge we had was that for parsing
purposes it needs to be unambiguous whether a parenthetical cross-reference is
an XRI or a URI. In absolute form that’s easy, but no so in relative form
because neither a relative XRI or a relative URI can contain a scheme name. Since
in XRIs the “native” form is XRI, we concluded our only option was
to accept relative XRIs and not relative URIs. However this end out being an almost
immaterial restriction because, unlike absolute URIs, the vast majority of
relative URIs are in fact valid relative XRIs. (In fact it’s hard to
think of one that’s not.) So effectively, there is no difference. Hope this helps, =Drummond From: Schleiff, Marty
[mailto:marty.schleiff@boeing.com] Hi All, In looking through the archives for some
other stuff, I encountered discussion about relative cross-references (http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200309/msg00035.html). At some point I may wish to re-visit the logic/conclusions in
that thread, but for now I just want to ask a new question: Does it make sense to allow relative XRIs
in a cross reference, but not relative URIs? I mean, aside from any syntax
challenges in representing the difference. Marty.Schleiff@boeing.com; CISSP
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]