- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:41:12 +0900
- To: John Bradley <john.bradley@wingaa.com>
- CC: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>, www-tag@w3.org
Hello John, John Bradley さんは書きました: > 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. I personally think that this is the right approach (without judging XRIs in general). > > 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 see any issues and, seeing no responses to your question in this thread I think others agree silently with that. > 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. IMO IRIs are unrelated to the main topic of this discussion. Felix > > Best Regards > John Bradley > OASIS IDTRUST-SC > http://xri.net/=jbradley > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2008 10:42:14 UTC