OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[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]