[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor priority attribute
The problem with step 2 is that if document order isn't preserved, you won't know. So steps 2 and 3 are synonymous. I'd propose: 1) Priority attribute if present 2) Otherwise, random order Mike >-----Original Message----- >From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] >Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 10:28 AM >To: Lindelsee, Mike ; 'Sakimura, Nat'; Wachob, Gabe; 'Peter >Davis'; 'Wodjenski, Sharon'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org >Cc: 'Chasen, Les'; 'Zhang, Ning'; 'Tran, Trung' >Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor >priority attribute > >Okay, then I'll resubmit the proposal that the normative text >should say to >process element priority in this order: > >1) Priority attribute if present >2) If not present, XML document order if preserved >3) If not preserved, random order > >Are there any other objections, or can we close this issue? > >=Drummond > >-----Original Message----- >From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] >Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:52 AM >To: Sakimura, Nat; Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; Peter Davis; Wodjenski, >Sharon; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org >Cc: Chasen, Les; Zhang, Ning; Tran, Trung >Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor >priority attribute > >As I see it, the issue is that we've already said that we can't rely on >parsers to maintain document order. If that is the case, then the >document order a resolving client sees has to be considered random. >Btw, I'm not convinced that this is the case. In my experience, XML >parsers do, in fact, maintain document order. But I'm willing to >develop the spec with the assumption that order might not be >maintained. > >Mike > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Sakimura, Nat [mailto:n-sakimura@nri.co.jp] >>Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 5:09 PM >>To: Drummond Reed; Wachob, Gabe; Lindelsee, Mike ; Peter >>Davis; Wodjenski, Sharon; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org >>Cc: Chasen, Les; Zhang, Ning; Tran, Trung >>Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor >>priority attribute >> >>Is it not better to state that it should default to the document order >>than let the consuming application decide randomly? If the document >>order has some significance at all, we should exploit that >>information. >> >>Nat >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] >>Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 7:54 AM >>To: 'Wachob, Gabe'; 'Lindelsee, Mike '; 'Peter Davis'; 'Wodjenski, >>Sharon'; xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org >>Cc: 'Chasen, Les'; 'Zhang, Ning'; 'Tran, Trung' >>Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor priority >>attribute >> >>Okay, Gabe, so what you are saying is that it isn't worth it to >>explicitly say that in the absence of a priority attribute, the >>consuming application should rely on document order, but instead just >>say that in the absence of a priority element, priority is up to the >>consuming application (and proceeding in document order is simply one >>strategy you can take). >> >>I'm fine with that. Is this issue closed then (save for review of the >>actual text you propose?) >> >>=Drummond >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:49 AM >>To: Lindelsee, Mike ; Drummond Reed; Peter Davis; Wodjenski, Sharon; >>xri-editors@lists.oasis-open.org >>Cc: Chasen, Les; Zhang, Ning; Tran, Trung >>Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor priority >>attribute >> >>Mike- >> With regards to document order - it needs to be preserved for >>the purpose of applying and verifying digital signatures (ie >>the Trusted >>Resolution mechanism we define in the resolution spec). >> Preservation of document order is not, strictly speaking, >>required for consuming/processing XRIDescriptors documents (you can >>reproduce ordering through the chaing of resolved and authorityID >>elements) either. That being said, the XRIDescriptors document *is* >>required to have the XRIDescriptor elements in order, so an XML >>processor that preserves order (honestly, I'm not sure of one that >>doesn't) would make an implementer's life a lot easier. >> Net-net is that I think we should NOT have document order be a >>default. Actually its not going to matter if that's the 3rd >>and optional >>default because if we don't say to use document order at all, each >>implementation is free to do what it wants anyway... Which may be >>document order or not. >> >> -Gabe >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Lindelsee, Mike >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:07 AM >>> To: Drummond Reed; '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 >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >>generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in >>OASIS >>at: >>https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr >oups.php >> >> >> > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all >your TCs in OASIS >at: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]