RE: XRI TC call today (Thursday)?

We can skip it today.

EHL

From: drummond.reed@gmail.com [mailto:drummond.reed@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 4:12 AM
To: Breno de Medeiros
Cc: Eran Hammer-Lahav; Scott Cantor; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: XRI TC call today (Thursday)?

I haven't seen anything about a WD 14 draft being posted yet or any other traffice since 2/5. Should we hold a call tomorrow? I might have a conflict myself - I don't know yet - but unless we have a new WD ready, perhaps better to let Will and Eran use the time to post one.

So right now I'll assume no call unless Will or Eran or Breno or someone thinks we need it. Please post if you do.

=Drummond

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Breno de Medeiros <breno@google.com> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 08:31, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:
> I'm saying that 'the Subject identified the resource' is all we should say. But that we should also say that for the purpose of comparing the subject URI to other URIs, scheme-specific rules must be used.

Great! Ship it :)

>
> EHL
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Breno de Medeiros [mailto:breno@google.com]
>> Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 8:30 AM
>> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
>> Cc: Scott Cantor; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [xri] What is this XRD is for?
>>
>> Forgetting the whole thing about Alias for a while, you are saying that we
>> don't have to describe how the Subject refers to the resource?
>> (e.g., applications should normalize the Subject in a scheme-dependent
>> fashion)? Of course applications are free to define further equivalence
>> conditions.
>>

xri message