RE: [xri] W3C comment addendum

["Lindelsee, Mike " <mlindels@visa.com>]

Gabe and I have come to the conclusion that we really have two
audiences: the Web/identifier-savvy audience and a less technical
audience.  It's unlikely that the Intro doc will work for both
audiences, so we're working on a revised FAQ for the more technical
audience and cleaning up the Intro doc for the less technical audience.

Our goal is to get docs out to the editors' group that we think are
complete.  I think that the priority is to get material out that will
help the more technical audience understand XRI, so we are focusing on
the FAQ first.  We'll have that to the editors' group on or before 5/27
and will have our revision of the Intro doc to the group the following
week (6/3).

Hopefully we'll be able to have a quick round of feedback/edits and then
put the docs out to the TC.

If anyone thinks this is the wrong approach, let us know.

Mike 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
>Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 4:45 PM
>To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [xri] W3C comment addendum
>
>The W3C's comment addendum (see below) strongly suggests that 
>our revision
>to the "Introduction to XRIs" document should include the following key
>points:
>
>1) That any native XRI can be downcast into a legal IRI or 
>URI, and thus can
>maintain complete compatability with the W3C TAG dictum about 
>identifying
>all resources with URIs (see 
>http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-use-uris); 
>
>2) The only reason native XRI syntax is not native URI syntax 
>is because XRI
>syntax extends URI syntax; and
>
>3) The reason native XRI syntax extends native URI syntax is 
>because XRI
>adds syntactic features that are not available in native URI 
>syntax (or else
>we would have used URIs). Obviously we feel these syntactic 
>features are
>highly desirable in uniform abstract identifiers or we would 
>not have gone
>to the great lengths we have to produce the XRI specifications.
>
>On this last point, I agree very much with Gabe and Mike that 
>the revised
>Intro doc needs to make it very clear that having a unified 
>syntax for both
>persistent and reassignable identifiers is only one of these 
>features, and
>not the most important.
>
>Mike, Gabe: how is the revision to the Intro doc going? I'm 
>going to take an
>action item to start a status list of errata fixes and 
>proposed revisions to
>the Committee Drafts; I'll try to have it posted early this week.
>
>=Drummond 
>http://public.xdi.org/=Drummond.Reed
>