OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri-editors message

[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]