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

RE: [XRI] Back to XRI

From: Booth, David (HP Software - Boston) <dbooth@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:10:05 +0000
To: "elharo@metalab.unc.edu" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
CC: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
Message-ID: <CD2B872281385A439B98164F5351E6DD24CF9B4925@GVW1144EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>

> > 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

Statements made herein represent the views of the author and do not necessarily represent the official views of HP unless explicitly so stated.
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2008 19:12:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:58 UTC