RE: [xri] Formal proposal on non-resolvable XRIs

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

[Note: this is long, but it proposes what Gabe and I believe is the best
solution of all to the issue of non-resolvability, which is no special
syntax at all because we already had what we needed for expressing this
clearly and concisely.]

Ah, "the simplicity on the other side of complexity" as Oliver Wendel
Holmes put it. In a long conversation with Gabe about non-resolvability
yesterday, Gabe illustrated just how vital it is that we go on vacation
now and again. Coming back with "beginner's mind", Gabe was looking at
this issue and these proposals with fresh eyes. And in doing so, he got
to the root of what it means for an XRI to be non-resolvable. 

As Gabe put it, it's not really a matter of any given XRI being ABLE to
be resolved, because that is something that may or may not be possible
at any point in time for all time. An XRI that is non-resolvable today
may be resolvable tomorrow, and vice versa (due to network conditions,
or the state of participating authorities, or the decision of the final
authority to add data and metadata corresponding to the XRI or not).

So what we really mean when we say an XRI is non-resolvable is that the
XRI author desires to make an *assertion* that a parser should not try
to resolve an XRI in the context in which it is being used (e.g., as an
XML namespace identifier).