RE: [xri] Relative XRIs

That’s a pretty drastic change. Someone did a fair amount of work to diverge from IRI and URI syntax here. I’m sure there was some theory behind that decision.

Dave

From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:37 PM
To: Dave McAlpin; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Relative XRIs

I noticed the same thing in my review but didn't flag it. The one place we diverge from IRI and URI is in the rules around the opening "//".

I would be in favor of realigning the XRI 2.0 rules so that for an absolute XRI:

1) "xri:" (the scheme name) is optional,

AND

2) IF an XRI starts with a GCS character, then "//" is also optional (i.e., the scheme name plus the "//" can be left off). If the XRI does not start with a GCS character, then "//" is not optional.

But by these rules the "//" can always be included.

Mike, is this cool with you?

=Drummond

From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:01 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [xri] Relative XRIs

There’s probably a good reason for this, but why is “//www.epok.net” a valid relative reference as a URI and IRI but not as an XRI?

--

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.305 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005

xri message