Re: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

["Tan, William" <William.Tan@neustar.biz>]

What's the worst-case scenario for XDI-RDF if we stuck with 2.0-style 
cross reference?
What would a typical XDI identifier look like?

If it's just ugly, I don't see an issue with it because other than 
hardcore geeks, surely no one is really going to type that stuff in?

=wil

Drummond Reed wrote:
> Again, I want to make sure it's clear why this is such a big issue: the XDI
> RDF model uses the "grammer" of global-xrefs. This "grammer" cannot be
> duplicated (at least in any easy way I can figure out) by "going back" to
> 2.0 syntax.
>
> So this issue is deep, deep, deep.
>
> =Drummond 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tan, William [mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:33 PM
> To: Gabe Wachob
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1
>
> Yes. Xrefs can only appear within parentheses.
>
> Gabe Wachob wrote:
>   
>> Can you spell out the implications of this choice so we know exactly what
>>     
> it
>   
>> is we are voting for/against? 
>>
>> That is, we are saying that XREFs basically stay as is and that the 
>> @foo+bar+baz syntax goes away? 
>>
>> 	-Gabe
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> -----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
>>>     
>>>       
>>   
>>     
>
>
>