RE: [XRI] Back to XRI

> > On 9-Sep-08, at 8:21 AM, Elliotte Harold wrote:
>       John Bradley wrote:
>       [ . . . ]
>               Do you have any feelings on integrating XRI
> into http via the HXRI mechanism we have been discussing
> elsewhere on this list?
>
> >     Not really, but I would object to anything that
> > requires different resolution strategies for HTTP. If you
> > give me an HTTP URL, I want to go get a representation (bit
> > stream) without any further inspection of the path or query
> > string or fragment ID. As long as I can do that, you're free
> > to put anything in the URL or at the other end that you feel like.

Just to be clear, a key point behind the Booth-Bradley approach[1] of using an http: subscheme for XRI identifiers is that they would not *require* agents to use any different resolution strategy.  Agents that are XRI aware could recognize the special prefix and use a different resolution strategy, but other agents knowing and caring little about XRIs could still use good old HTTP.

1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Jul/0093.html


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.