W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2008

RE: [XRI] XRI-as-Relative-URI proposal (ACTION-189 refers)

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:51:42 +0000
To: Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>, "'Henry S. Thompson'" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, 'Peter Davis' <peter.davis@neustar.biz>, "jbradley@mac.com" <jbradley@mac.com>
Message-ID: <CD2B872281385A439B98164F5351E6DD39C39D3898@GVW1144EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Since I was active in this discussion earlier I just thought I chime in to say that I agree with Henry's comments.  I think the XRI-as-Relative-URI idea is an excellent direction to go.


David Booth, Ph.D.
HP Software
+1 617 629 8881 office  |  dbooth@hp.com
http://www.hp.com/go/software

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Drummond Reed
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2008 2:41 PM
> To: 'Henry S. Thompson'
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org; 'Peter Davis'; jbradley@mac.com
> Subject: RE: [XRI] XRI-as-Relative-URI proposal (ACTION-189 refers)
>
>
> Henry,
>
> Thanks very much for the feedback. Sorry to be slow in
> responding -- last
> week we held the XRI TC F2F meeting after Internet Identity
> Workshop in
> Mountain View.
>
> Thankfully you posted your message before the meeting so we
> were able to
> discuss it there. See responses inline.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henry S. Thompson [mailto:ht@inf.ed.ac.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:41 AM
> > To: Drummond Reed
> > Cc: www-tag@w3.org; 'Peter Davis'; jbradley@mac.com
> > Subject: Re: [XRI] XRI-as-Relative-URI proposal (ACTION-189 refers)
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Drummond Reed writes:
> >
> > > [There's] a new proposal for how XRIs can better fit with AWWW
> > > architecture.
> > > . . .
> > > The proposal is written up on an XRI TC wiki page at:
> > >
> > >     http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xri/XriAsRelativeUri
> >
> >
> > I've looked at this in some detail, and agree with others' comments
> > that it looks like a very good direction to move in.
> >
> > I think the clarifications that have emerged in this thread wrt what
> > you call the concrete/abstract distinction are important, and should
> > be included, very carefully, in the eventual full specification.
> >
> > I have two remaining concerns:
> >
> >  1) Very little is said about where the necessary base URIs
> are going
> >     to come from.  This is almost certainly corrigible
> going forward,
> >     that is, in a new specification, although it will have
> to be done
> >     carefully, and, I hope, with reference to either the
> Infoset [base
> >     URI] property [1] or XML Base [2] insofar as XML-expressed
> >     languages are concerned.  Retrospective cleanup, for example wrt
> >     OpenID's usage of 'short' old-style XRIs such as =jbradley, will
> >     be more challenging, but should none-the-less be attempted I
> >     think.
>
> We agree that the XRI 3.0 specification must provide clear
> guidance about
> the base URI. We will be proactive about asking the TAG for
> review of the
> XRI 3.0 syntax and bindings specs as they proceed.
>
> >  2) I think the list of candidate schemes which may be used in
> >     XRI-signalling base URIs is too ambitious,
> unnecessarily so as far
> >     as I can see.  Including e.g. ftp: is surely to miss the 80-20
> >     point by a long way.  More seriously, including urn: is a big
> >     mistake.  There is no well-defined notion of relative URN, or of
> >     absolutisation for URNs.  URNs are not what RFC 3986 calls
> >     'hierarchical identifiers', and the RFC says explicitly [3]:
> >
> >        "relative references can only be used within the context of a
> >         hierarchical URI"
> >
> >     Please just don't go there!
>
> The XRI TC agrees with you that XRI bindings should be to
> hierarchical URI
> schemes. At the F2F meeting we concluded that the initial
> three XRI bindings
> will be to http:, https:, and info:. We will consider
> additional bindings as
> required over time, but these three should give us plenty to
> get started
> with.
>
> Best,
>
> =Drummond
>
>
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.element
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
> > [3] http://www.apps.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#sec-1.2.3
> > - --
> >        Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University
> of Edinburgh
> >                          Half-time member of W3C Team
> >       10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND --
> (44) 131 650-4440
> >                 Fax: (44) 131 651-1426, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
> >                        URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
> > [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without
> it is forged
> > spam]
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iD8DBQFJHBJIkjnJixAXWBoRAlZeAKCA92xk8cKVybPpNW3oNj2JlLiJ1gCfehZf
> > DKtmOZjTB3RSLDfEktpUDoI=
> > =rif+
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 20:53:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:08 GMT