RE: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@cordance.net>]

+1 (of course).

I'm deeply concerned about the apparent complexity issue because when
communicate with "non-XRI"-aware users and developers (such as here at the
Higgins f2f in Austin), concatenated syntax is the brain-dead simple option
and parenthetical cross-reference syntax is the "hard to wrap your head
around" option.

Secondly, as I've said a number of times, the XDI RDF model uses it very
extensively. 

This reinforces the sense I had that this issue was not really resolved in
San Diego, i.e., even though we did a straw poll there, there was still a
deep division over this issue. 

So we need to "go deeper" as a TC. I'll make it the lead agenda item on this
week's telecon on Thursday (especially since that's the last call on which
we'll have Wil for the next month).

=Drummond 

-----Original Message-----
From: Tan, William [mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:25 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

We did an informal poll at the f2f two weeks ago on whether we should 
stick with XRI Syntax 2.0. I suggest we vote again on the list.

+1 - to support concatenated syntax
0 - don't care
-1 - no concatenated syntax

I'm reverting my vote to -1 because the solution is too confusing IMHO.

=wil