RE: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1

["Chasen, Les" <les.chasen@neustar.biz>]

We have been around and around this issue.  The editors (most of us)
don't seem to see why 2.0 syntax is overly complex.   Yes it is harder
to write out on a white board but that does not make something
complicated.  I would like to here from others on why syntax 2.0 does
not work.

contact: =les
sip: =les/(+phone)
chat: =les/skype/chat
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:41 PM
> To: Tan, William; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1
> 
> +1 (of course).
> 
> I'm deeply concerned about the apparent complexity issue because when
> communicate with "non-XRI"-aware users and developers (such as here at
the
> Higgins f2f in Austin), concatenated syntax is the brain-dead simple
> option
> and parenthetical cross-reference syntax is the "hard to wrap your
head
> around" option.
> 
> Secondly, as I've said a number of times, the XDI RDF model uses it
very
> extensively.
> 
> This reinforces the sense I had that this issue was not really
resolved in
> San Diego, i.e., even though we did a straw poll there, there was
still a
> deep division over this issue.
> 
> So we need to "go deeper" as a TC. I'll make it the lead agenda item
on
> this
> week's telecon on Thursday (especially since that's the last call on
which
> we'll have Wil for the next month).
> 
> =Drummond
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tan, William [mailto:William.Tan@neustar.biz]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 3:25 PM
> To: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [xri] POLL: Syntax 2.0 or 2.1
> 
> We did an informal poll at the f2f two weeks ago on whether we should
> stick with XRI Syntax 2.0. I suggest we vote again on the list.
> 
> +1 - to support concatenated syntax
> 0 - don't care
> -1 - no concatenated syntax
> 
> I'm reverting my vote to -1 because the solution is too confusing
IMHO.
> 
> =wil
> 
>