RE: [xri] Relative XRIs

["Lindelsee, Mike " <mlindels@visa.com>]

No theory on my part if that is what you are thinking.  Most likely just
an oversight in trying to align the ABNF with all of the other
requirements.  Dave, what do you think is the right thing to do? 

Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:Dave.McAlpin@epok.net] 
>Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 2:42 PM
>To: Drummond Reed; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: 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
>
>
>