[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] RE: Single delegation character
Most users would prefer fen@idcommons over either @idcommons*fen or @idcommons!fen. It "speaks" better, which means they'll remember it (and like it) better. That may not be an option for us, but we are re-visiting the spec, so all options should be re-considered. Fen - while you're at it, you should try asking if they prefer @idcommons/fen to either of the above. That works regardless of the change to the spec (if any). I prefer bang over splat, and admit to printing a "bang name" on my business card in the past. =Loren -----Original Message----- From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 2:04 PM To: Fen Labalme Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [xri] RE: Single delegation character I didn't mean to jump to a conclusion about bang versus star. Aside from your original proposal, I haven't seen any formally expressed interest in star. If there are others who prefer it we should hear from them. At this point, I think, Mike Lindelsee, Peter Davis, Gabe Wachob and I have all expressed a preference for bang. Since it was clearly the leading contender, it seemed reasonable to use that when constructing examples. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] > Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 1:50 PM > To: Dave McAlpin > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: Single delegation character > > Wait a minute - how does '!' have the most support? I believe there's > four of us (Drummond, Victor, Owen and myself at the least) who prefer > '*' -- not to mention that there is code now using '*'. > > But we really have to consider the public and not just programmers, as > programmer could care less, or lean towards '!' (I kinda like the old > bang addressing model myself). But it's *users* who's community e-names > will be either @idcommons!fen or @idcommons*fen, and from my (albeit > informal) user surveys, they overwhelmingly prefer the latter. > > We'll do another survey this weekend - I'll be comfortable with the > results either way. > > Fen > > > Dave McAlpin wrote: > > Since ! seems to have the most current support, I'll use it as a > > stand-in for the dot replacement. Parsing XRIs is difficult because of > > cross-references. The added complexity of two second level delimiters > > instead of one is miniscule. I generally understand the argument that > > since there's a single first level delimiter, there's some goodness in > > the parallelism of a single second level delimiter, but it doesn't seem > > strong enough to be the deciding factor. As for readability, do you > > really prefer xri:@:1!:2!:3 over xri:@:1:2:3? > > > > Dave > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Fen Labalme [mailto:fen@idcommons.org] > >>Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 12:35 AM > >>To: Dave McAlpin > >>Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > >>Subject: Re: [xri] Possible changes to XRI 1.0 > >> > >>Thank you, Dave, for an excellent summary of proposed changes. One > >>omission is the proposal to define '*' as the sole delegation > > > > character. > > > >> This would make parsers easier to write, XRIs easier to read, and > >>plays nicely against the single hierarchy character '/'. But I'll > > > > leave > > > >>further discussion of this point to Drummond. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave_workgroup.php .
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]