- From: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:19:59 -0700
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "John Bradley" <john.bradley@wingaa.com>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2d509b1b0807142219i7923a259q821e7567f83ecab0@mail.gmail.com>
Mark, Part of the issue is the confusion as to whether strings prefixed with xri: is a new URI scheme or not. A variety of people and XRI documents have said that xri: prefixed strings are NOT URIs because such xri: strings are not valid URI strings, hence the need for the XRI to URI mapping. My interpretation, perhaps wrong, is that a new string identifier format was being proposed that was NOT a URI. There is quite some documentation to support this, such as the material that specifies that a URI prefixed by xri: may be interpreted as an XRI in the presence of an XRI base declaration(not sure quite the terminology used) and? the absence of a URI base declaration such as xml:base. Which means every XML processor needs to be preceeded by an XRI processor for the correct processing of any xri: strings. Cheers, Dave On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > > Hi John, > > I suspect you're asking a lot of questions here to the TAG, rather > than specifically to myself, so forgive me for just responding to > those questions that I feel I'm in a position to respond to. > > On 7/15/08, John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com> wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > If we were to proceed with David's recommendation to remove the xri: > scheme > > from the spec and use the HXRI form for web compatibility through a > proxy, > > then we would need some way for XRI aware applications to recognize what > the > > actual protocol of a http scheme URL is. We are open to finding the > > optimal way to achieve this. > > > > We had been operating under the impression that the scheme of a URI was > > designed to do that. > > This we are told is outdated information. > > No, you were correct to use a new URI scheme. > > Just because new URI schemes are more often than not a bad idea, > doesn't mean one should standardize a way to replace URI-scheme > functionality elsewhere in the syntax of a URI. > > IMO, the advice you've been given to avoid new URI schemes should have > been rephrased to make it clearer where the problem was. The advice > should have been to try and solve the problems that XRIs are intended > to solve using http URIs (without additional license ala HXRIs). > > > I ask, are all protocols and transports that are requested to use the > http > > scheme going to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny? > > Absolutely. The bar is pretty high over on uri-review, where we > regularly have to educate folks about the value of reusing existing > schemes such as http. > > > Just for my clarification, is your position that, if XRI can be shown to > > meet certain standards of utility it should register the xri: scheme? > This > > will allow the authority segment of the http scheme to remain opaque. > > Yes. > > Mark. > -- > Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca > Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies http://www.coactus.com > >
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 05:20:38 UTC