RE: [xri] Relative XRIs

["Dave McAlpin" <Dave.McAlpin@epok.net>]

I didn't mean to suggest that we should change the ABNF. Any change in
syntax requires a ton of analysis and will be very disruptive at this
point in the process. I really just wondered what the thinking was
behind this.

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Lindelsee, Mike [mailto:mlindels@visa.com] 
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:47 PM
To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [xri] Relative XRIs

 Works for me.  I'll take a look at the ABNF and see what needs to be
changed to support this.

Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>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?
>
>

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.


-- 

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