- From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:15:44 +0000
- To: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@cordance.net>
- CC: 'Paul Prescod' <paul@prescod.net>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C816BA093361@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Hello John, > We have some momentum established please lets not lose it. > > I eagerly await the TAG's feedback from its call on this Thursday. Much as I would like to oblige, unfortunately the summer vacation period is starting to kick-in, and after a cascade of regrets (6 out of 10) I no-longer have critical mass for the TAG to meet this week. I am hopeful of a meeting next week (24th) though I already have regrets on record from 3 members - we have also cancelled out regular meetings on 31/7, 7/8 and 14/8 and I expect us to resume a mostly normal meeting pattern on 21/8. I know that is not what you want to hear... Drummond and I have exchanged a few emails off-list, and I think that we think that the most/only way to maintain some momentum through the summer is to email discussuion on this list - it would be helpful to folks that either explicitly want to tune in or out of this discussion if subject lines could contain a marker, say "[XRI]" (hmmm... somewhat ironic) so that folks can filter their mail accordingly. I think that, given unsynchronised lapse of attention for periods ranging from 1-4 weeks, finding someone that would be willing to provide balanced summary of discussion over the summer might be useful around mid-Aug (that's just me thinking aloud without particular expectations). Best regards Stuart Williams co-chair W3C TAG -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England > -----Original Message----- > From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of John Bradley > Sent: 17 July 2008 05:38 > To: Drummond Reed > Cc: 'Paul Prescod'; www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: Boeing XRI Use Cases > > Hi All, > > There are a lot of options, perhaps too many. > > Encoding a sub scheme in the path like ARK. Doing something > special with the domain name. Or even using a URI scheme. > > Each as plusses an minuses. Independent of the URI scheme > issue, I am coming to the conclusion that the HXRI form > should adopt one or perhaps both strategies for > discriminating HXRI from "regular" http: URLS. > > I see merit in both approaches, and I sincerely thank people > for contributing there ideas. > > We are starting again to venture into IPR issue territory. > > Is it the TAGs intention to develop a universally acceptable > encoding methodology for what I will call http: sub schemes? > > Should this work be undertaken by the W3C under its IPR > rules, or is it the desire of the TAG to have a OASIS TC > undertake this work under OASIS RF-Limited. > > I am happy to propose a new TC or have the XRI-TC undertake > the work if that were mutually agreeable. > > We at OASIS do not shy away from undertaking new spec work. > > I think a clear desire has been expressed that someone needs > to undertake it. > > What ever Standards body and IPR regime undertakes the work I > would encourage people from both OASIS and W3C to participate > as possible. > > We have some momentum established please lets not lose it. > > I eagerly await the TAG's feedback from its call on this Thursday. > > Best Regards > John Bradley > OASIS IDTRUST-SC > http://xri.net/ > > > > On 16-Jul-08, at 8:48 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: > > > Paul, > From my POV, this is an extremely interesting > proposal. 2.5 years ago when the XRI TC was trying to figure > out how to best comply with the TAG's feedback on an early > draft of what's now XRI Resolution 2.0 (in which they asked > for this type of for HTTP(S) URI integration), we had to > solve exactly this same problem: how could we express an XRI > inside an HTTP(S) URI (a combination we call an HXRI) in a > way that could be unambiguously understood by all XRI-aware > parsers/applications while still being a fully valid HTTP(S) URI? > In the absence of such a recommendation, we had > to struggle with it on our own and finally ended out > specifying a slight variant on what we recently learned was > the approach David Booth documented in his "Converting New > URI Schemes or URN Sub-Schemes to HTTP" [1]. The only > difference of what we did from what David specified was that > in order to avoid specifying a single centralized XRI proxy > server, we specified a pattern HXRIs must follow (essentially > "xri.* in the domain name PLUS an XRI global context symbol > as the first char of the path). > Had a TAG recommendation for what you are > proposing existed, it not only would have saved us months of > time, but it would have provided a standardized solution vs > us needing to specify our own special case. > The only suggestion I have to your proposal is > to add a second forward slash to the identifier so that you > reduce the potential for false positives even further. Thus > the ABNF for "HTTP(S) subschemes" as the first segment of the > path of an HTTP(S) URI would be. > subscheme-id = reg-name "://" > .where reg-name is the rule of that name from > the ABNF for RFC 3986. Then it could be specified that the > subscheme document SHOULD (or MUST) be specified at > http(s)://reg-name. > Best, > =Drummond > [1] http://dbooth.org/2006/urn2http/ > ________________________________ > > From: www-tag-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Prescod > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 6:19 PM > To: www-tag@w3.org > Subject: Re: Boeing XRI Use Cases > Let me make a concrete proposal. > Could the W3C (the TAG? Or someone else?) issue > a recommendation to the effect that URIs of the following > form are special: > > http://xri.example.org/SOMETHING:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phon > e <http://xri.example.org/xri:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phone> > It would be permissable for an application > detecting a URI of that form to interpret the URI *either* > according to the HTTP specification *or* according to some > other specification attached to the word SOMETHING. > SOMETHING's should probably be managed in a > registry but I don't know whether to use the domain name > registry or something else. For the sake of continuing, let's > presume the domain name registry: > > http://xri.example.org/uri.xri.org:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+ph > one <http://xri.example.org/xri:/@boeing*jbradley/+home/+phone> > It might be a best practice that > "http://xri.org/" have a prominent link to documentation of > how the URI is used. > Once the W3C had issued such a recommendation, > the chances of someone minting these URIs by accident would > drop (even below the really tiny current chance). > I see a use-case that's been bugging me for years; > > http://my.vital.service.com/failover_uri:/path/failover_uris=URI2+URI3 > (I'd have to think more about how exactly the > escaping works to get the three URIs embedded) > Today's HTTP clients would contact me with the > full URI and I'd discard URI2 and URI3. But a smart HTTP > client might try URI2 if it couldn't contact my.vital.service.com. > Paul Prescod > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 10:17:55 UTC