[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Proposals for XRI Descriptor priority attribute
I think my email was pretty confusing. I agree with Mike on this one. -Gabe > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 12:48 PM > 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 > > I have no problem with this approach, but I saw messages from > Gabe and Nat > indicating that they still wanted to say something about > document order. > > Gabe, Nat: can you live with Mike's proposal? > > =Drummond > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] > Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 11:10 AM > To: Drummond Reed; 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 > > 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_workg > roups.php > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]