[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] RE: case sensitivity of XRI authorities
Sorry to be such a late comer! One concern: Unicode 4.0 case insensitivity makes sense just because of this particular sentence: The default casing operations are to be used in the absence of tailoring for particular languages and environments. Where a particular environment (such as a Turkish locale) requires tailoring, that can be done without violating conformance. Unicode assumes that you know the locale you are in. We do not know the locale we are in unfortunately, which brings us an extra dimension of troubles. Nat > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@onename.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:11 AM > To: XRI Editors (E-mail) > 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/membe > rs/leave_w > orkg > 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/membe > rs/leave_workgroup.php. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]