[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
My answer to Dave's question #1 is "yes". I believe case-insensitivity
is a good thing in XRI authority component for purposes of determining
equivalence for the same reasons it is the in URI authority component
(and even in percent-encoding). I believe Mike's earlier point about
case-sensitivity of user names and other resources in Unix will apply
primarily below the XRI authority level (but I could be convinced
otherwise if he feels strongly about it).
On Dave's question #2, I defer to Nat, however I did read Standard Annex
#21 and it seemed pretty clear and comprehensive.
Nat, what's your view?
=Drummond
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:00 AM
To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; Drummond Reed; 'XRI Editors (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
Right, so there are really two questions.
1) Do we want the XRI-authority component to be case-insensitive, and if
so
2) Is case-less matching as defined in Unicode 4.0 good enough?
The second is probably a question for Nat.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:44 AM
To: 'Dave McAlpin'; 'Drummond Reed'; 'XRI Editors (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
+1 to Dave's proposal if the feeling is strong towards case
insensitivity in
the authority part.
Is there anything broken about applying that part of Unicode 4 to our
current spec?
-Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:17 AM
> To: 'Drummond Reed'; 'XRI Editors (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
>
>
> That's a good summary of my proposal, although I think we'd
> probably cite
> section 3.13 of the Unicode 4.0 spec rather than Unicode
> Standard Annex #21.
>
> Dave
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 10:05 AM
> To: XRI Editors (E-mail)
> Subject: [xri-editors] RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
>
> [Note: I moved this discussion to the Editor's list for archiving. I
> also copied in Dave's second response re Unicode case rules
> so it would
> all be in one place. =DSR]
>
> Okay, so Dave's argument, as I understand it now, is that:
>
> A) We should specify full Unicode 4.0 caseless matching for the XRI
> authority segment because this should be true of ALL XRI authority
> identifiers, this being the global portion of an XRI that uses an XRI
> authority.
>
> b) We should not specify any case insensitivity rules for the
> rest of an
> XRI path because that should be up to each authority.
>
> To further summarize, this means that we are proposing that the 1.0
> specification will say that there are only 3 places in which
> case-insensitivity applies to ALL XRIs:
>
> 1) Percent-encoding.
>
> 2) URI authority segments using the rules specified in RFC 2396.
>
> 3) XRI authority segments as specified in Unicode Standard Annex #21
> (http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr21/tr21-5.html)
>
> Does everyone agree with this proposal?
>
> =Drummond
>
>
> ***DAVE'S ADDITIONAL RESPONSE***
>
> Incidentally, the new Unicode 4.0 spec does describe caseless
> matching.
> The
> text was incorporated from
> http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr21/tr21-5.html.
> There are two or three corner cases that are problematic, but the vast
> majority of situations are covered.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 8:16 AM
> To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; Lindelsee, Mike; Nat
> Sakimura (E-mail);
> Peter C Davis (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
>
> Right, but that only addresses my problem if the global namespaces are
> case-insensitve, which puts us right back where we started.
>
> Imagine DNS names were case sensitive. You visit a page with a link to
> http://www.Microsoft.com. You'd like to visit Microsoft's
> website so you
> click the link. Unfortunately, www.Microsoft.com is a
> malicious site (as
> was
> the site that contained the link). You really wanted to go to
> http://www.microsoft.com but were tricked into going to a rogue site
> because
> you, as a user, didn't know the proper case of the target site. That
> would
> be bad. It seems to me that case sensitive comparisons in the
> XRI-authority
> segment are bad for exactly the same reason.
>
> With that said, I AM sensitive to the concern about
> internationalization
> and
> the message it sends to treat English language characters differently.
> Let
> me ask the question this way - if there was a good algorithm for doing
> case
> insensitive comparisons across the entire Unicode range,
> would you guys
> support case-insensitivity in the XRI-authority?
>
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 9:42 PM
> > To: Dave McAlpin; Wachob, Gabe; Lindelsee, Mike; Nat Sakimura
> (E-mail);
> > Peter C Davis (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > I find your argument compelling too. I agree that the authority
> > component is a special case, that could be treated differently that
> the
> > rest of the XRI.
> >
> > The biggest problem I have with saying XRI authorities should be
> > case-insensitive is that XRI authorities, unlike URI authorities,
> allow
> > the full IRI character range (for which I think we all
> agree we cannot
> > define case insensitive rules, unless we can adopt
> something specified
> > by Unicode).
> >
> > If that's the case, then singling out the ASCII range for
> > case-insensitivity in XRI authorities seems, well, a little
> insensitive
> > (pardon the pun ;-)
> >
> > An alternative is to say that BECAUSE XRI authorities are
> > internationalized, case insensitivity is not specified at
> the level of
> > the XRI spec, but can be adopted by any particular XRI authority.
> >
> > How do folks feel about that?
> >
> > =Drummond
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 6:08 PM
> > To: Drummond Reed; 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'Lindelsee, Mike'
> > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> >
> > You're right that this wasn't my original position. I'm
> willing to be
> > outvoted, but consider the following.
> >
> > 1) The authority segment is special, primarily because we define the
> > resolution mechanics for it. I don't think it's
> inconsistent to define
> > equivalence rules for it and be silent about non-authority segments.
> >
> > 2) In fact, because we define resolution, I think we're obliged to
> give
> > guidance about case sensitivity in the authority component,
> one way or
> > the
> > other.
> >
> > 3) The authority component is the piece a user or programmer is most
> > likely
> > to guess. That's certainly true for domain names and I'll bet it's
> > equally
> > true for xri authorities.
> >
> > 4) If the authority component is case insensitive, guessing is
> > dangerous.
> > For example, xri:@Nordstrom and xri:@nordstrom will resolve
> differently
> > (possibly to the same network endpoint, but they wouldn't be
> equivalent
> > by
> > definition). That means that Nordstrom either needs to register all
> > possible
> > case distinctions a user might reasonably guess or else be
> subject to
> > spoofers. I think both options are bad.
> >
> > My preference is
> >
> > A) Percent-encoding is case INSENSITIVE.
> > B) Both URI-authorities and XRI-authorities are case INSENSITIVE.
> > C) Everything else is defined by the naming authority that controls
> the
> > segment or subsegment in question (i.e. by its immediate parent).
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:58 PM
> > To: Wachob, Gabe; Lindelsee, Mike; Dave McAlpin
> > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> >
> > Ah, good, at least I think we're all on the same page now. Mike's
> > argument about case sensitivity convinced me that C was the
> best path
> > for XRI authorities, even though it's different than URI
> authorities.
> My
> > reasoning is that by not requiring in the spec for XRI
> authorities, we
> > keep the option open for specific XRI authorities to "narrow" their
> > namespace to case sensitive, but that the spec itself will be broad
> > enough to allow for case-insensitive authorities.
> >
> > So, Dave, it seems that Gabe, Mike, and I would all prefer
> to adopt C.
> > What's your stance?
> >
> > =Drummond
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:33 PM
> > To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; Lindelsee, Mike; Dave McAlpin
> > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> >
> > We are out of sync!
> >
> > C) is NOT agreed to. I like the position stated in C, but I think it
> the
> > opposite of what we've agreed to.
> >
> > I gather that Mike L would follow whatever decision we made, so I
> wonder
> > what Dave's position is on case-sensitivity of XRI-authorities. I'd
> like
> > to adopt the position in C)
> >
> > -Gabe
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:29 PM
> > > To: Wachob, Gabe; Lindelsee, Mike; Dave McAlpin
> > > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > >
> > >
> > > First, my bad. My message said "So the conclusion is
> case-sensitivity
> > > only for percent-encoding and URI-authorities" and what I
> > > meant was case
> > > INsensitivity for these. Sorry, just not enough coffee this
> > > morning ;-)
> > >
> > > Second, I'm still unclear from Gabe's message below. So let me put
> it
> > > this way. I believe what we agreed on was that:
> > >
> > > A) Percent-encoding is case INSENSITIVE.
> > >
> > > B) URI-authorities are case INSENSITIVE.
> > >
> > > C) Everything else, including XRI-authorities, are case
> > > SENSITIVE. (If a
> > > particular XRI authority decides to apply case INSENSITIVITY to a
> > > namespace under their control, that's their perogative,
> but the spec
> > > will not require that.)
> > >
> > > Does everyone agree?
> > >
> > > =Drummond
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 12:03 PM
> > > To: Drummond Reed; Lindelsee, Mike; Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin
> > > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > >
> > > Wait guys!
> > >
> > > We're getting a little confused here.
> > >
> > > First of all, lets be clear about case-sentivity vs.
> INsensitivity.
> > >
> > > 1) I think we all agree that domain names (URI
> authorities) are case
> > > INSENSITIVE and there is nothing broken about this.
> > >
> > > 2) The issue is about non-domain names (XRI authorities) - for
> example
> > > xri:+foo and xri:+Foo. Currently they are specified as case
> > > INSENSITIVE
> > > (meaning that US-ASCII characters as case-insensitive,
> but all other
> > > characters, including, for example, Ñ and ñ are treated
> > > differently - ie
> > > case SENSITIVE). I'm not convinced this is required for URI
> alignment
> > > and in fact, I think its a bad idea given the Ñ/ñ situation I
> > > mentioned
> > > in a previous email.
> > >
> > > 3) And %-escaped characters are equivalent whether or not the
> > > hex digits
> > > are upper or lower case (ie %b0 is the same as %B0).
> > >
> > > Is this what everybody is agreeing to?
> > >
> > > -Gabe
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 11:48 AM
> > > > To: Lindelsee, Mike; Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin
> > > > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, Mike. I recalled that your reasoning convinced me
> > > and it still
> > > > does. So the conclusion is case-sensitivity only for
> > > percent-encoding
> > > > and URI-authorities. XRI authorities can then of course
> > > decide on the
> > > > rules for their individual namespaces, but the spec will say
> nothing
> > > > about this.
> > > >
> > > > Done.
> > > >
> > > > =Drummond
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 10:30 AM
> > > > To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin; Lindelsee, Mike
> > > > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > > >
> > > > I was just reviewing that thread and Dave remembered the
> > > > result of that
> > > > discussion correctly. We left it that percent encoding and
> > > > URI-authorities would be case-insensitive. I'm still not
> > > > convinced that
> > > > URI-authorities need always be case-insensitive (except in the
> case
> > > > where we are being backwards compatible with DNS names), but
> > > > am happy to
> > > > accept the wisdom of the group on this. ;)
> > > >
> > > > My reasoning, btw, was (imho) not particularly strong, but
> > > still makes
> > > > sense to me. That is, unicode issues, case-sensitivity in many
> > > > filesystems, and case-sensitivity in account/resource naming
> > > > all lead me
> > > > to feel that it would be more flexible and forward-looking to
> > > > not limit
> > > > ourselves by declaring all of an XRI (or even just the
> > > Authority part)
> > > > case-insensitive.
> > > >
> > > > Mike
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 6:48 PM
> > > > > To: Wachob, Gabe; Dave McAlpin; Lindelsee, Mike
> > > > > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know I'm late on this but I though Mike persuaded
> us all that
> > > > > everything should be case sensitive. Mike, what was your
> > > > argument, and
> > > > > where did we end up after you made that argument?
> > > > >
> > > > > =Drummond
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 1:04 PM
> > > > > To: 'Dave McAlpin'; Wachob, Gabe; Drummond Reed;
> Lindelsee, Mike
> > > > > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't changed the text as it is now, lets see if we get
> > > > > comments on
> > > > > it. I would guess their (URI) brokeness has to do with
> > > the DNS case
> > > > > insensitivity (they didn't think anyone else would
> come up with
> a
> > > > > different way of naming authorities i bet you).
> > > > >
> > > > > -Gabe
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:36 PM
> > > > > To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'Drummond Reed (E-mail)';
> 'Lindelsee, Mike'
> > > > > Subject: RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > > > > In the previous discussion, we decided to leave it broken
> > > > with respect
> > > > > to internationalization because Nat said it was impossible
> > > > to come up
> > > > > with a generic, case insensitive comparison algorithm. At the
> > > > > same time,
> > > > > there was support for case insensitive comparison, so we
> > > > > decided not to
> > > > > throw the baby out with the bathwater and leave it enabled
> > > > > for the ALPHA
> > > > > production. Another way of looking at it is that we just
> > > > > followed 2396's
> > > > > lead on the authority portion.
> > > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:31 PM
> > > > > To: Dave McAlpin (E-mail); Drummond Reed (E-mail); Lindelsee,
> Mike
> > > > > Subject: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
> > > > >
> > > > > What was the resolution on this topic?
> > > > >
> > > > > We have the language in there about case insensitive for alpha
> > > > > characters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is this what we concluded? I can't find a record in email.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a little odd, of course, because for languages
> > > like Spanish,
> > > > > xri:+pequeño and xri:+Pequeño are the same but
> xri:+pequeño and
> > > > > xri:+PEQUEÑO are different. That smacks of indifference to
> > > > > internationalization concerns (its odd because whether or not
> the
> > > > > upcasing/downcasing changes equivalence depends on which
> > > > > characters you
> > > > > use).
> > > > >
> > > > > My vote is against case insensitivity even in the
> > > > "authority" part, at
> > > > > least as a rule that applies to all xris. We could
> say that, for
> > > > > example, within the + namespace, the naming
> authorities are case
> > > > > insensitive (with whatever definition of case insensitivity
> > > > we decide
> > > > > makes sense), but it strikes me as broken to declare case
> > > > > insensitivity
> > > > > the way we have done it.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Gabe
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/membe
rs/leave_workg
roup.php.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/members/leave_w
orkg
roup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]