RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor priority attribute

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

Comments inline... 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:12 PM
>To: Lindelsee, Mike ; 'Peter Davis'; 'Wodjenski, Sharon'; 
>Wachob, Gabe; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: 'Chasen, Les'; 'Zhang, Ning'; 'Tran, Trung'
>Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor 
>priority attribute
>
>We still need the priority attribute to handle two use cases:
>
>1) Resolver or resolving application does not handle/preserve 
>XML document
>order;
>

Understood, but doesn't XML document order need to be preserved in any
case?  Actually, this may only be for the case of trusted resolution.
Dave, Gabe -- any input on this?

>2) Authority producing the XRID wants to explicitly express that two
>Authority/Service/Internal Synonym/External Synonym/URI 
>elements have the
>same priority.
>

This case makes sense to me and definitely requires more information
than was originally in the XRID.


>So the proposal is only to add one more layer to Peter's 
>proposal, i.e.,
>process element priority in this order:
>
>1) Priority attribute
>2) If not present, XML document order
>3) If not possible, random order
>
>That said, if inserting document order as a middle step seems odd, then
>scrap it and let's just go with Peter's proposed language.
>

I think your proposal is sensible and am all for handling priority with
the three steps you outline above.

Mike