[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Comments from Jerome Jump
I realize that Appendix A is normative, but this is simply errata.
From: Dave McAlpin
Are you sure it’s pure errata? I realize it’s easy enough to figure out what was intended, but it looks like a normative change to me.
From: Drummond Reed
Speaking of erratta, in writing another document that references the Syntax spec, I noticed that we forgot to roll one of the final changes we made to the ABNF in the main doc into the collected ABNF in Appendix A.
It's on line 852/3 it currently says:
It should match lines 223/4:
This is pure erratta, but we need to roll it in too.
From: Wachob, Gabe
These don't sound like changes requiring a new draft, but if we do have a new draft, they should get integrated.
From: Jerome Jump
In reviewing Committee Draft 01, 14 March 2005 of the Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution V2.0, I came across the following:
1) On line 864: I believe the constructed XRI should be “xri://@example2…” instead of “xri://=example2…”. This is because the external synonym (line 859) contains an “@”, not an “=”. Or, change line 859 so that it says “xri://=example2”. In any case, the two should be consistent.
2) A lot of the XML, while correct, should be reformatted for easier reading by a human.
Other than that, the specs look pretty good.