[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xri] Potential breakthrough
Drummond Reed wrote: > > I have an internal maxim that I follow: if Steve tells me he’s got a > problem with something, and after three times trying to work it out > with him, he’s still got a problem with it, then I need to look at it > very closely and see if there’s a better solution. > > I’ve worked long enough with Marty now to realize the same thing is > true with him. > > So when both of them plus Wil are telling me something is too complex, > that’s one helluva strong signal. > Not to mention Gabe too. > So after yesterday’s thread, I looked closely at the requirements > again and thought about the key issue Steve has raised about how > “sticky stars” makes for funky synonym rules. This jibes with what > Marty keeps saying about how the original “compact syntax” was much > simpler than “sticky stars”. > > I have always been the one saying that we needed sticky stars. So I > revisited that assumption…and realized that in that area I too had > been stuck with a “2.0” filter on. I had been assuming that anything > you could express as a parenthetical xref (which is “opaque” to XRI > resolution) had to be something that was also equally “opaque” when > expressed as a global-xref. > > But it’s that assumption that leads both to most of the increased > complexity and the funky synonym problem. So if you drop that > assumption and do as Marty has been suggesting all along and simply > treat all subsegments as subsegments… > > …everything works just fine. > [snip] > > So I tried to figure out if there was any other requirement – in XDI > RDF or anywhere else global-xrefs would be used – that would not be > met if global-xrefs were not opaque. I couldn’t come up with any. > I think you said that if we couldn't have sticky stars it would hugely diminish the benefits of concatenated syntax. I don't recall drilling into the reasoning behind that. I agree that not having the sticky star rules does simplify things a lot. In effect, we're kind of back to compact syntax, which means that a global-xref is a two-subseg-XRI-where-first-subseg-is-GCS construct. In this case, it really becomes more like a shorthand i.e. compact syntax. I wonder if this approach was taken if we should revisit normalization? Certainly, the rules of when to normalize to a parenthesized form are going to be simpler as well. I still feel that the parentheses makes it clear that the referenced identifier is local, especially Steve and Marty's point that =steve@microsoft.com gives a false sense impression that the real authority is @microsoft.com to people who are used to email identifiers. =wil
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]