[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] Question on Tags and Cross References
Just to point out: =nika(+contact) is not
valid XRI syntax in any version of XRI (1.0, 2.0, or the proposals for 3.0). As
John pointed out, in 2.0, there must be a delimiter before the parentheses. So… =nika*(+contact) =nika!(+contact) =nika/(+contact) …are all valid XRI 2.0 syntax. The proposal for global cross-references in
XRI 3.0 does not change that – any XRI subsegment encapsulated in
parentheses still needs to preceeded by a delimiter. However with global cross-references,
“+contact” would no longer be required to be in parentheses. So
=nike+contact would be valid XRI 3.0 syntax. That said, the higher priority subject for
this week is feedback on the XRI-as-relative-URI proposal at http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriAsRelativeUri.
We need to finish discussing that and move that discussion to the TAG list before
we move too far into the “XRI NG” discussion (which will be a major
subject at our F2F). =Drummond From: Barnhill,
William [USA] [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] I
thought the items previously deferred until XRI 3.0 were now going to be rolled
into XRI 2.0, since we need to change the spec and then resubmit for
ratification? On
=nika+contact being a proposed XRI 3.0 direct concatenation and the
proper 2.0 syntax being =nika/(+contact) I think the XRI TC (or XDI) need
to define a profile of XRI usage that standardizes the format for contact
information. The way that makes sense to me (to allow delegation without a
redirect) is (for 2.0) =nika(+contact), or for (3.0) =nika+contact.
There's going to be a fair number of profiles like this so might be better to
just define a mechanism to publish a profile spec on XRI usage. The XDI
dictionary might take care of that, but you probably don't want to introduce a
dependency of XRI on XDI (which depends on XRI). The XDI dictionary could
define a mechanism for publishing certain portions of it's content as an XRI
pattern profile (or whatever you call it). Bill
Barnhill From: John
Bradley =nika+contact is a proposed XRI 3.0 direct concatenation The proper 2.0 syntax would be =nika/(+contact) I am guessing that you intend +contact to be in the XRI path and not a
authority sub segment? =jbradley On 15-Oct-08, at 10:04 AM, Nika Jones wrote:
Is there any difference between: |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]