[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Explicitly non-resolvable XRIs
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]