[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Comments on XRI Syntax Draft 10
|
XRI TC Members and Observers: The final Working Draft (10b) of XRI Syntax
2.0 has been posted at the following links in preparation for tomorrow's vote: * PDF: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14896/xri-syntax-V2.0-wd-10b.pdf * Word: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/14895/xri-syntax-V2.0-wd-10b.doc Gabe's were the only additional comments
received since Working Draft 10. Below I've noted the disposition of each of his
comments (see ### sections). See the following message for tomorrow's
call time and agenda. =Drummond From: Wachob, Gabe
[mailto:gwachob@visa.com] Dave & Drummond- I looked through the -10 version
with a focus on areas that were changed and had just a very few bits of
feedback Line 139 - the word "community" is not used before
this line. I'd just say "..to be used to specify an XRI authority" (or
"XRI root authority"). ### Changed to your first suggestion. Line 266 - The URL should probably point to the http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xri/V2.0
URL ### Changed by removing the URL
altogether, since we don't in fact have a URL to point to, thus it might be
deceptive to do otherwise. Line 325 - (also Line 343 - table 1) - I think the word
"authority" is being used a little sloppily here. In IRI & URI
specs, "authority" means a syntactic construct - a BNF production. In
Table 1, the descriptions of the various GCS's talks about authorities as
organizations who exert control. I think its better to stick to the IRI/URI
definition. I'd change the text in the tables to the following (text changes
apply to the "Establishes Global Context For" column: For =: Identifiers for whom the authority is controlled by
an individual person For @: Identifiers for whom the authority is controlled by
an organization. For +: Identifiers for whom there is no centralized control
of the authority, or for whom the authority is controlled by general use. For
example, generic dictionary concepts, "tags", etc. For $: Identifiers for whom the authority is controllede by
a specification from a standards body. For example, other ... ### Incorporated your new language, with
slight editing for continuity, in the table. Line 781 - RFC 4234 has just been published (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4234.txt)
which obsoletes RFC 2234 - This updates the ABNF specification. I don't know if
we want to go there - I don't know what changes are in 4234 and whether they
affect our BNF. If anyone is up for *heroic* effort, they could look at RFC
4234 and see if we can just reference it instead of RFC 2234... ### Kept the same because DaveM did the
"heroic" effort and recommended as follows: "Although it looks perfectly safe, I
think I’d prefer to stick with 2234. Not a strong preference, though. If
the change log is correct, there’s essentially no difference between the
two: Changes since [RFC2234]: In Section 3.7, the phrase: "That is, exactly <N> occurrences of <element>." was corrected to: "That is, exactly <n> occurrences of <element>." Some continuation comment lines needed to be corrected to begin with comment character (";").
### END ### |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]