[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Issue 1: Clarifying * Semantics
Fen wrote: > Note that :12:34 would still be a legal persistent identifier, it just would > not imply a separation (or delegation) between two parts. In other words, it > is similar to the identifier :12.34 (using the new semantics for dot as a > regular character). ******* You raise an important point here - that the proposed change is not backwardly compatible with 1.0 XRI syntax. In my opinion, changes that aren't backwardly compatible should go through a more rigorous process for approval. Does anyone know if there's precedent for this on other Oasis committees? > In my strongly held opinion, if we are going to make any simplifications, they > should be aimed at making the semantics easier to understand and the human > friendly identifiers simpler and easier to read and (humanly) parse. I > believe that is what this proposed simplification does. If it does so at a > slight cost to the human readability of non-human (machine) friendly > identifiers, that's a good decision. ****** We share the same strongly held opinion. I do understand that it negatively affects MFI's, but I don't see it affecting HFI syntax at all. Can you show an example of an HFI before and after this change, and how it's more readable? Loren West wrote: > I understand how you see a single separator as a simplification, > and hope you can understand how I see ":" as a simplification > over "*:". They're both "simpler", but one doesn't require > a change to the specification.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]