[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] reserved words disallowed for e-names
My resistance may come down to a matter of definition. I've always considered e-names and e-numbers as fancy words for non-persistent and persistent XRIs (respectively) that can be used anywhere in the XDI web. One important place they're used is in the = and @ namespaces, and I've seen those e-names / e-numbers referred to as "global e-names / e-numbers". If, however, I've gotten my definition of e-name/e-number wrong, and they really mean "the things registered under the = and @ namespaces", then the usage of the term "global" is redundant. If e-names really are defined the way I thought, then I have a problem with reserved words in the e-name specification. They should be in the "global e-name" specification. I understand the reason behind restricting single and double letter global e-names, but aside from "Example", I don't see the reason to restrict any of those proposed e-names in the global e-name specification. =Loren -----Original Message----- From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 11:52 AM To: Loren West Cc: 'XDI TC' Subject: Re: [xdi] reserved words disallowed for e-names My thinking about why some names ought to be reserved regards documentation, similar to RFC2606 that reserves e.g. example.com. Being able to write documentation that includes examples like '@community/member' and '=user' without these names referring to actual entities is, IMO, valuable. I agree that if any names are reserved at all, it would be most important that they are reserved at the root, e.g., the = and @ name spaces. Note that I also pose the question of disallowing one and two-character e-names, and e-names with any xri-reserved character in them (though the ABNF allows (e.g) this subset: ;!*@&=+$, Fen Loren West wrote: > I'm not sure why we need to reserve any of these names. > If so, maybe only at the root. Remember, XDI resources > describe people (identities) as well as data within > those identities (business cards, etc). > > Although it doesn't make much sense to register people > with those restricted words, I could imagine a few > thousand other words that don't make much sense, but > I wouldn't know why we would want to disallow them. > > Can you describe to me why you want to restrict e-names, > and if so, in what namespace (=/$/@ - or some other namespace)? > > Thanks, > > =Loren > > -----Original Message----- > From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] > Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 10:55 PM > To: XDI TC > Subject: [xdi] reserved words disallowed for e-names > > > At the TC meeting in New Orleans, I mentioned that we may want to > disallow some words as e-names in the same way the DNS Registries > disallow single letter names and (e.g.) example.com > > I have taken a stab at an initial set of reserved words here: > http://xrixdi.idcommons.net/moin.cgi/EnamesAndEnumbers#head-bb873c830605d42e > 40754efd118bfc9bcdb75c17 > > Please read and comment. > > Thanks, > Fen > > PS: I'm not a member of the XRI list - perhaps this note should be > forwarded there, too? >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]