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

Re: Boeing XRI Use Cases

From: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:29:59 -0700
Cc: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <D2009F75-AD96-413E-8DA7-F33BD255DE3C@wingaa.com>
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
I want to rase a question to the group in general.

The XRI-TC has defined 7 forms for the representation of XRI,  and the  
transformations between them.

I reviewed them in response to a question by David Orchard on this  
thread July 14.

Three of those forms involve using the xri: scheme indicator at the  
start.

Thee forms one scheme?  How can the be?

I think this question is causing some of the push back.

People are concerned that strings that have a valid scheme prepended  
are not valid URIs.

This is true,  however this situation is NOT the invention of the XRI- 
TC, nor is it unique to XRI.

The XRI-TC followed RFC 3987 to allow internationalized forms of XRIs.

XRI has two IRI forms:
1. IRI-Normal   This allows UTF-16 Though UTF-8 is recommended
2. IRI-UTF8       A more restrictive form allowing only UTF-8

The one difference between a http:  IRI and a xri: IRI is that XRI  
specifies the more restrictive NFKC Normalization across the entire  
string,  Where http uses two separate normalization's PUNyCODE for the  
Authority segment and NFC for the path,  and don't ask about the query  
string:)

XRI has one and only one URI form.  The transforms to and from this  
form are clearly defined.
This is the form that is uses anyplace a URI is required.  A IRI is  
NOT a URI,  it would be WRONG to use a IRI in an XML document for name- 
spacing.

The XML specs are clear and unambiguous use a URI.

XRI clearly differentiates between the two things.

I am currently getting surprising push back on defining IRIs for use  
with openID.   With ICANN's recent decisions on DNS http: IRIs are  
coming.

If we had something other than a URI scheme to identify a IRI  that  
might address some of the issues.

I am tempted to ask if people are opposed to IRI RFC3987 in some  
way?   However that would probably be impolitic.

Yes there are many open question regarding XRI's fundamental right to  
exist.

However is there an issue around our use of IRI that is going unspoken?

If there was no IRI form would anyone think that having a xri: scheme  
was a more reasonable thing.

I don't want to dismiss the opinion expressed on this thread that  
having a scheme is the appropriate way to represent a protocol other  
than http being used for a URI.

I think there are three major options at this point:
1.  Use a URI scheme to indicate that a string is an XRI,   Plus HXRI  
for backwards compatibility with browsers and click behavior.
2.  HXRI with special coding in the authority segment
3.  HXRI with special encoding in the Path.

I suppose there is a fourth possibility which is only using xri: on  
the URI form and not having an IRI form.

I suppose we could always define a http: IRI form?

So I would appreciate your thoughts on how IRI plays into this  
discussion on  XRI.

Best Regards
John Bradley
OASIS IDTRUST-SC
http://xri.net/=jbradley








Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2008 16:30:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:23 UTC