[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] subject sets (was: Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PTThursday 2009-07-16)
I think for our use cases, all we need is for the URI inside the Subject elements to match (using 3986 comparison rules). If one side has a set attribute, the other side must too. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:09 PM > To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; 'XRI TC' > Subject: RE: [xri] subject sets (was: Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT > Thursday 2009-07-16) > > Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote on 2009-07-28: > > Does XML namespace work for attribute values? I rather avoid a > registry > and > > avoid a URI value... > > Will answered that... > > > It is perfectly valid because you are giving a hint (or requirement, > if > > used for trust) as to what to expect on the other side. Since the > other > > side can have a set, so can a Link. This point seems to favor a > single > > element for simplicity. > > You have two Subject elements to "compare" and both of them are > arbitrary, > potentially infinite sets that you have to intersect. Or are you saying > they > have to syntactically match without regard for the set behind them? > That > would be easy, but I doubt it's what you want in every case. > > It's easy to see what it means to have a beginswith on the Link side > that > matches an exact Subject on the other end. Once you get beyond simple > cases, > it gets harder pretty quickly. > > -- Scott >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]