[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Stable XRI 1.1 ABNF
> 5. The ABNF explicitly disallows cross references as the > first segment of a > relative XRI. This is due to allowing "xri://" to be > optional. From our > perspective, it seems broken to disallow this whole class > of XRI's. For instance, > xri://@foo/(+SecurityPolicy) is allowed by the ABNF but > the relative XRI > "(+SecurityPolicy)" is always treated as an absolute and > therefore can never > be expressed in a relative form. Anyway, our > recommendation is that we should > either require "xri://" in all absolute XRI's or take > another careful look > at what we are doing to the XRI syntax to accomodate > "xri://" being optional. Drummond and I discussed issue 5 and the resolution we both agreed upon was that relative XRI's that start with a cross reference are distinguished from absolute XRI's that start with a cross reference through the use of "./" . That is: (mailto:foo@example.com) <-- absolute ./(mailto:foo@example.com) <-- relative This use of ./ has a precedent. We note that ./ is required when you have a relative XRI (or URI for that matter) where the first segment has a ":". For example, the relative XRI "foo:22/bar" is easily confused for a absolute URI of the scheme "foo" if you don't use "./foo:22/bar" ./ is legal syntax to begin an XRI with in the new BNF. We'll have to have language describing the use of ./ for this new disambiguation and it probably will affect normalization/comparison rules as well (maybe not). -Gabe
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]