[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics
As we've pointed out before, the thing that makes parsing and interpreting XRIs difficult is cross-references. The difference between the two options we're currently discussing is negligible. As for simplification of the rules, if implied * is confusing let's just require it. In other words, keep the current interpretation of * and change xri:@example/foo to xri:@*example/*foo, comparable to xri:@:3/:4. This is a much simpler change and has the benefits you mention below. Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 5:12 PM > To: Wachob, Gabe; Loren West; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics > > As one of the proponents of this proposal (who is > finally getting caught up with his vacation email), > I'll accept Gabe's invitation to speak up about it. > > I don't believe this change is "aesthetic" (I agree an > aesthetic change could be argued ad infinitum either > way.) It is functionally motivated by the following > reasons: > > 1) Having a single second-level separator character > simplifies the parsing and interpretation of XRIs (it > reduces the number of separator chars from 3 to 2). > > 2) As Gabe's summary points out, it eliminates any > special rules about "implied" reassignable decorators > (currently leading dots) in segments. Instead, the > rules would now be crystal clear: slashes and stars > are separators; the presence of a colon after either > one (or a GCS char) indicates the segment is a > persistent identifier; the absence of a colon means > the segment is a reassignable identifier. > > 3) The elimination of such special rules simplifies > XRI normalization and comparison. > > 4) This overall simplification of XRI construction > also simplifies the development of XRI applications > such as XDI. > > =Drummond > > > --- "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com> wrote: > > Loren- > > I think the discussion is whether the proposed > > change should be adopted. If we take no action, > the > > change will not be adopted. > > As to whether this is an aesthetic-only change, > > I'll let the initial proponents of this proposal > > speak up. I think it's largely aesthetic, but can > see > > some technical value in the simplification of > > comparison (no need to account for "implied" > leading > > *'s in segments). > > > > -Gabe > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > gwachob@visa.com > > Chief Systems Architect > > Technology Strategies and Standards > > Visa International > > Phone: +1.650.432.3696 Fax: +1.650.554.6817 > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Loren West > [mailto:loren.west@epok.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:05 AM > > > To: Wachob, Gabe; xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * > Semantics > > > > > > > > > Is there any technical basis for this > change? > > > > > > Issue #1 is easy for me because there's a > > technical reason that we > > > chose the wrong character. Issue #2 seems > to be > > purely aesthetics > > > as it works equally both ways. > > > > > > So - are we discussing which one we think is > > aesthetically more > > > pleasing? > > > > > > I have an opinion as to which one I prefer, > but > > that opinion pales > > > in comparison to my opinion on changing the > > specification for > > > aesthetic purposes only. > > > > > > =Loren > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wachob, Gabe [mailto:gwachob@visa.com] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:44 AM > > > To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * > Semantics > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > 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 > > . > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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]