[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form
Thanks, Dave. I'm joining this thread way late (at almost midnight), and I see the points both ways. I think that like the other equivalence rules, this will end out being a SHOULD. A good SHOULD for canonical form should be very helpful to implementers. And if Gabe's right, it will take a load off resolvers too - a good thing. Let's see how it turns out. =Drummond -----Original Message----- From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:52 PM To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form Ok. I'll draft some text and try to get it posted to the list tomorrow. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:47 PM > To: 'Dave McAlpin'; Wachob, Gabe; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form > > The argument against requiring canonical form for resolution is that it > puts the canonicalization requirement on the client (instead of the > server). > > So I guess I'm ok with some non-normative text, if you feel thats the best > way. But I would at least suggest that by making it non-normative, we > would have to mention in resolution that a local access server (and a > naming authority server, perhaps) has to implement either canonicalization > or equivalence rules locally (on the server side). Clients (resolvers) > will *also* have to do this if they ever want to compare XRIs. > > -Gabe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 12:14 PM > > To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form > > > > > > Right, I just want to make sure we're comfortable tackling > > something that > > others have chosen not to define. HTTP 1.0 (RFC1945) provided a simple > > definition of canonical form but it was removed in 2068, > > apparently after > > some thought and discussion. Massinter's comment below is an > > argument not to > > reintroduce the concept in 2616. > > > > 2396 avoided the issue entirely and 2396bis only provides general, > > non-normative guidance. > > > > All those specs chose to focus on equivalence rules rather > > than a canonical > > form, which is exactly what we've done up until now. I'm just > > asking if > > we're really sure about this before I start working on it. > > > > Dave > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:32 AM > > > To: 'Dave McAlpin'; Wachob, Gabe; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form > > > > > > While this is true (about canonicalization of cross > > references), I think > > > its perfectly reasonable to talk about canonicalization of > > those parts we > > > have control over (ie XRI-defined syntax). Perhaps > > "canonical" is too > > > strong a word. > > > > > > I suspect that the vast majority of XRIs will not contains cross > > > references containing other URI schemes. And in those cases > > where they do, > > > maybe we'll have to live with the fact that there is not > > one canonical > > > form. > > > > > > Maybe we call it "XRI canonicalized URI form" to suggest > > that its only > > > canonicalized as far as XRI syntax goes.. > > > > > > -Gabe > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 11:06 AM > > > > To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form > > > > > > > > > > > > It's interesting that neither 2396 nor 2616 defined a > > canonical form. > > > > 2396bis defines some "good practices" for making URIs "reasonably > > > > canonical", but they don't attempt anything normative. The > > > > following post by > > > > Larry Masinter is instructive. > > > > > > > > > In general, URLs do _not_ have a canonical form. However, HTTP > > > > > defines some equivalences for URLs (e.g., that http://host is > > > > > equivalent to http://host/, and by using the generic > > > > > syntax for host names, the host part is case insensitive). > > > > > > > > > > Some particular HTTP servers MAY define other equivalences, > > > > > e.g., that http://host/dir is equivalent to http://host/dir/ > > > > > and to http://host/dir/index.html. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that URIs don't have a normative canonical form, it's > > > > hard to see how > > > > we can define a canonical form for XRIs that contain > > cross-references. > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 10:58 AM > > > > > To: 'Dave McAlpin'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > Subject: RE: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form > > > > > > > > > > I think canonical form is sort an arbitrary, but well > > > > understood "state" > > > > > of an identifier. > > > > > > > > > > When an identifier is in canonical form, it should be > > > > possible to compare > > > > > it with another identifier in canonical form and the > > > > process of comparing > > > > > the two character-by-character (or in the case of > > > > canonicalized URIs, byte > > > > > for byte) is exactly the process of applying the built-in > > > > equivalence > > > > > rules in the XRI spec. > > > > > > > > > > Does this make sense? I mentioned the leading-. issue, the > > > > $! and ! cross > > > > > references. One other thing that would be useful to describe for > > > > > canonicalization is the uppercasing of %HH (hex digit).. > > > > > > > > > > If we define resolution to operate only on > > canonicalized forms of > > > > > identifiers, it potentially makes the deployment of XRI > > local access > > > > > servers MUCH simpler as they don't have to apply any of the > > > > "built-in" > > > > > equivalence rules themselves. They just have to make > > sure that they > > > > > resolve the one canonical form... > > > > > > > > > > -Gabe > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com] > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 10:50 AM > > > > > > To: xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > > > Subject: [xri-editors] XRIs and canonical form > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been asked to draft text specifying a "canonical form" > > > > > > for XRIs. I > > > > > > wanted to start by understanding what canonical form > > > > meant for URIs in > > > > > > general, and in searching the web I came across the following > > > > > > exchange. The > > > > > > initial question is from Terence Spielman of Visa, followed > > > > > > by Gabe's and my > > > > > > responses. Just interesting that we've considered this > > > > > > question before. > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>In addition, aside from unresolvable references, > > is it possible > > > > > > >>> to canonicalize XRIs? This is a highly desireable feature > > > > > > >>> (for equivalence, at a minimum). > > > > > > > > > > > > >>We talked quite a bit about this. The decision was made to > > > > > > be silent on > > > > > > >>canonicalization because equivalence is actually > > > > > > unambigious given the > > > > > > >>rules stated. Now, that doesn't mean that its at > > all obvious. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>I do think giving names to the escaped vs. unescpaed forms > > > > > > of XRI, at > > > > > > >>least, would be useful. Canonicalization would then just > > > > > > be transforming > > > > > > >>an identifier into one of those forms. We didn't want to > > > > > > mandate a single > > > > > > >>canonical form because different environments would need > > > > > > XRIs in different > > > > > > >>levels of escaping and it would be unfortunate to > > > > require a specific > > > > > > >>canonicalization form that would require otherwise-unneeded > > > > > > transformation. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>Again, Dave McAlpin probably has better input on this. > > > > > > > > > > > > >A canonical representation might be useful for comparison, > > > > > > but it would > > > > > > >involve a formal definition of things like "minimally > > > > > > escaped", which would > > > > > > >be fairly difficult to nail down. It would also depend on > > > > > > the existence of > > > > > > >a canonical form for URIs used as cross-references. In other > > > > > > words, an XRI > > > > > > >wouldn't have a canonical form if it contained > > > > > > cross-references that didn't > > > > > > >define a canonical form. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Note that equivalence rules are generally problematic. The > > > > > > IRI proposal, > > > > > > >for example, completely dodges the question of equivalence > > > > > > when it says, > > > > > > >"There is no general rule or procedure to decide whether two > > > > > > arbitrary IRIs > > > > > > >are equivalent or not... Each specification or application > > > > > > that uses IRIs > > > > > > >has to decide on the appropriate criterion for IRI > > > > > > equivalence." 2396bis > > > > > > >notes that even terms like "different" and "equivalent" are > > > > > > fuzzy in the > > > > > > >general spec and ultimately application dependent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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_workgroup.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. > > > > > > 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_workgroup.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 orkgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]