[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: XRI Resolution 2.0 Draft 09 comments
Hi all, Here are my comments/suggestions/questions regarding the newly
submitted draft. Please let me know if I’ve misread something. 1. xrd:XRD/xrd:Service/xrd:Pattern – what flavor of
regular expression should the value be (perl-compatible, posix, etc.)? Is the
full power of regexp really required, why not just simple string comparison or
prefix matching? 2. Line 393 – how about wording it like “A
synonym is an XRI that, in its normalized form, differs from another normalized
XRI, but which identifies the same target resource …”? Just to make
it clear that an un-normalized XRI and its normalized version are not synonyms. 3. If table 4 and 5 on pages 13 and 14 can be combined so
both examples show up side-by-side it would help readability a great deal.
Perhaps removing the “www.” from the xref root may save some space. 4. Section 2.8 Versioning - if the version attribute is
optional, implementations may take the shortcut to ignore its presence thereby
defeating the purpose of versioning. A newer version may not change the schema
but we may want the possibility of modifying the semantics of the elements or
attributes. We may not have that choice should implementations do not respect
version information. 5. Section 6.3 – why MUST the proxy resolution server
perform lookahead resolution? Why can’t it perform subsegment-by-subsegment
resolution? 6. Section 3.2.7 – What’s the difference between
<Synonym xref=”true”> and <XSynonym>? Thanks. wil. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]