[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] RE: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC
Thanks for answering Drummond. I do seem to be the lone voice advocating a simpler XRI layer that XDI addressing builds on, so the XDI addressing only approach is clearly the TC consensus.
That saddens me a bit because it means XRIs cannot be used independently of XDI addressing, and I think there is a lot of potential there.
My opinion is also 'If it didn't ship, it might as well not exist.', which means that for pragmatic purposes there is no option of using XRI 3.0 if it is not at least a CD, at least without significant risk of adoption for anything that builds on the last WD of XRI 3.0. Some may be willing to go with that risk, I've heard many express that they will not base something on anything that not at least a CD.
I don't understand why the last WD cannot be delivered as, at the least, a CD, unless it is not of sufficient quality to submit for wider review (I don't think this is the case), even if XDI addressing includes changes to XRI syntax rather than just layering on top of it, or doesn't mention XRI syntax at all (that would seem strange to me). I am pushing for a CD because that last WD is the culmination of years of work by quite a few people and it seems a waste to just leave it as a WD. Submitting the last XRI WD as a CD could be the last act of the XRI TC, or an act of the XDI TC.
I also want to point out that I think the time to engage the W3C might not be prior to any vote for ratification, which to me means once final draft is done but before the submission for vote, but now, as the rough drafts of the specs are brought together. In other words work with them now in developing what we have into spec form rather than ask them for comment at the end. In fact I'd love to see publication of a draft of the current XDI Addressing ABNF to the wider user community in a request for technical feedback (not just from W3C, but the IdentityCommons folks, and general Identity community, i.e. Kaliya's mailing list), before we go to CD with XDI Addressing.
From: email@example.com [firstname.lastname@example.org] on behalf of Drummond Reed [email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:36 PM
To: Barnhill, William [USA]
Cc: Joseph Boyle; Will Norris; Chasen, Les; Markus Sabadello; XRI TC; Davis, Peter; Chet Ensign
Subject: Re: [xri] RE: [External] Re: [xri] XRI TC Members: Proposal to close the XRI TC
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Barnhill, William [USA] <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
It's not even an XDI "layer". It's just XDI addressing syntax, which is based directly on the XDI graph model structure.
The proposal is simply to close the XRI TC and contribute the work to the XDI TC, so any ongoing work on XRI would happen there. However apart from yourself I don't believe there is anyone else who is interested in pursuing XRI 3.0 Working Draft at the XDI TC. We would simply be repurposing the XRI work within XDI addressing.
It's not that it "goes away" -- the XRI 3.0 Working Draft would remain as a resource at OASIS (in fact my understanding is that it would not even move, i.e., everything the XRI TC produced remains archived).
And it won't get directly "replaced" by any one XDI spec. Rather XDI Core 1.0 will define the ABNF for XDI addressing.
No. No further work is planned on it.
To my knowledge, yes. And those same principles are being followed by XDI 1.0, i.e., all XDI addresses will, after escaping, be valid relative URIs.
I don't know. As you know, XDI is an entirely different animal than XRI, so IMHO all the issues that W3C had with XRI are past history now. With XDI we are in new territory, but especially in light of what happened in the past, I can assure you we will work to build every bridge we can with the W3C prior to any vote for ratification.