Re: [xdi] Is it a problem that the XDI # symbol will conflict with URI #

Subject: Re: [xdi] Is it a problem that the XDI # symbol will conflict with URI # fragment char?

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:04 AM, Chowdhury, Animesh <Animesh.Chowdhury@neustar.biz> wrote:

It is a concern. However, in the same token “+” , and “!” and “[“ and many other characters that can appear in an XDI address can’t be used in the URL with URL encoding either.

So, I’ve come to realize that an XDI address cannot be used in an URL without encoding. So, I don’t think making an exception for “#” is going to buy us much.

Thanks,

Animesh

From: xdi@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:xdi@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of =Drummond Reed
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:19 PM
To: OASIS - XDI TC
Subject: [xdi] Is it a problem that the XDI # symbol will conflict with URI # fragment char?

As part of coming to a final decision about The Great Symbol Swap, I just had a long talk with Peter about his -1 vote. His primary concern is one I share: as attractive as # might be as the popular symbol for a hashtag—and thus generally applicable to the XDI dictionary space—it is also the URL fragment identifier.

This means that when it is typed in a URL, the browser does not send it to the server, but only processes it locally in parsing the returned resource.

So if we expect users to type #words (unescaped) as part of an XDI address into a browser address bar (without a plug-in), they will not be part of the XDI address sent to the server.

This is not a problem if we assume some form of XDI-aware smart client will be used to resolve XDI addresses (e.g., a browser plug-in, a web form submitted to an XDI resolver, a mobile app, etc.), as then all XDI addresses will be automatically URL-encoded.

So, I cast this question out to TC members: is this a problem you are concerned about or not?

=Drummond

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Davis, Peter <Peter.Davis@neustar.biz> wrote:

-1.

I remain concerned that we are just relocating the semantic collision from @ to # (both have meanings to the general population outside of XDI).

=peterd

On Mar 4, 2014, at 03:06 AM, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org> wrote:

+1

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 8:46 AM, =Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:

Per the minutes I just sent out, I have continued to check with both XDI TC members and others involved in related infrastructure with the following results:

There is unanimous support for reassigning + to the legal/business authority namespace (formerly represented by @).
There is nearly unanimous support for reassigning # to the dictionary namespace (formerly represented by +) and reassigning @ to the ordered collection member namespace (formerly represented by #).

So this is a call for rough consensus, i.e.:

If you agree with the proposed reassignments in the two bullet points above, reply with a +1.
If you are neutral, reply with a 0 (or don't reply).
If you disagree with these proposed reassignments, reply with a -1.

Thanks,

=Drummond

Peter Davis: Neustar, Inc.

Distinguished Engineer, Director, Neustar Foundry

45980 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166

[T] +1 571 434 5516 [E] peter.davis@neustar.biz [W] http://www.neustar.biz/ [X] xri://@neustar*pdavis [X] xri://=peterd

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.

xdi message