RE: [xri] Explicitly non-resolvable XRIs

["Drummond Reed" <drummond.reed@onename.com>]

My first thought is that it may be a very elegant solution. It moves the
non-resolution logic to a different place, requiring parsers to
understand non-resolution differently, but that may be a good thing.
 
My most immediate input is that we should not use "xrin", however,
because the "n" is likely to be interpreted by humans as "name" (a la
"urn").
 
I'd vote for "xrx" or "xrix". In both cases the final "x" stands for
both "do not resolve" and "xref" (which, unless I'm missing something,
is the only real purpose of a non-resolvable XRI - to serve as a way to
establish equivalence across domains).
 
=Drummond 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:dave.mcalpin@epokinc.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:36 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Explicitly non-resolvable XRIs
 
There's a desire to provide syntax that marks an XRI as explicitly
unresolvable. Draft-06 includes a bang "!" character in the
authority-part production for this purpose. As noted in the issues list,
this causes several problems with XRIs that contain a URI-authority. For
example, software that knows how to handle generic URIs will see the !
as part of the server component (most likely the hostname component),
where it's an illegal character. I'm suggesting we define a different
scheme, xrin, that's identical to xri except that it explicitly
disallows resolution. Thoughts or comments?
 
Dave