Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

I'm attempting to summarize the issue here - if you feel I'm misstating it, please chime in.  

Issue 1: There is some desire to clarify the semantics of "*"... If we convert to using "*" instead of ".", there was a feeling that we should change the semantics of '*', to make it a pure separator, instead of a separator and a decorator (indicating reassignability). 

In XRI 1.0, both : and * are separators and decorators. That is, they both indicate that the following token is a subsegment, and that reassignability of a following subsegment. 

The proposal here is to convert * to a pure separator and : to a pure decorator. That is, all subsegments are delimited by * and persistent subsegments begin with a :... 

XRI 1.0: xri+example/degenerate
XRI 1.1: xri+example/degenerate

XRI 1.0:  xri:+example.simple/:45:45:34
XRI 1.1: xri:+example*simple/*:45*:45*:34

XRI 1.0: xri:+example.simple/another.segment:43:55
XRI 1.1: xri:+example*simple/another*segment*:43*:55

Note that persistent segments get an extra character, whereas reassignable segments don't get an extra character (and of course, the "." turns to "*"). 

One advantage is that subsegments are dilineated only by "*", so visual parsing becomes simpler, and (more importantly), there is no need for an implied leading "*" at the beginning of a "/" segment, making comparisons somewhat simpler. 

The question is, assuming we pick "*" as the delimiter (we'll still need to vote on that though I haven't heard much discussion against "*" recently), do we use this new interpretation of "*" and the new syntax it implies.

Feedback welcomed. If I don't hear *any* discussion, I'll try to move to a vote as soon as is fair. 

Look for a vote on the "*" character replacing the "." soon as well. 

	-Gabe
 
__________________________________________________ 
gwachob@visa.com
Chief Systems Architect
Technology Strategies and Standards
Visa International 
Phone: +1.650.432.3696   Fax: +1.650.554.6817