Title:
Drummond-
We have
some feedback:
[All references in this list are to the numbering in the
document you sent out]
1) We'd want to reorg this into a 3 part document:
Introduction, Syntax, and Resolution (which includes security issues related to
resolution). We don't think there is a security section for syntax-related
issues.
2) Sections 2.1 and 2.2 should after section 3 (syntax
components) in the Syntax part. While this breaks the parallelism to RFC 2396,
we think its more natural reading.
3) Section 2.3 should become its own section (in the Syntax
part), before the section on Normalization and Comparison
4) Relative XRIs - we still have substantive questions about
this - RFC 2396 only talks about syntactic relativity - is that what we are
talking about here? Also how is a relative XRI (in the rfc 2396 sense)
disambiguated syntactically from the relative forms in the sense that we mean
"relative" for XRIs.
5) Under Normalization and Comparison, there is no discussion
of Normalization. But, we think there probably DOES need to be a discsion of
normalization before talkin about equivalence and comparison (at the very least
to address normalization of I18N XRIs)
6) Section 5.2 - "Indirect equivalence". We think that once
you get beyond syntactic definitions of equivalence, you open up a whole
pandora's box of issues and that one could argue any equivalence is applicaiton
-specific (and that you start needing to define equivalence in different ways).
This doesn't seem appropriate for this document. Maybe a sentence or two
suggesting that there are other ways of describing equivalence (e.g. two XRIs
resolve to the same "persistent" XRI), but this shouldn't be normative in this
document, and I think getting it precise enough is going to turn out to be a rat
hole of effort (at least in the general case).
7) In the security section, we think that everything mentioned
here (except for security w/r/t resolution ) sounds non-normative and shouldn't
be part of the specification. Perhaps in the non-normative
document..
8) Why is section 4.2 named the same as section
4?
9) For sections 4.1 (Relative URIs) and section 5.1 (URI
Equivalence), these don't seem like they should be separate sections, but maybe
just introductory text, since they aren't defintional.
10) What 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 - what is special about resolvability
in the case of cross reference that needs to be called out in the equivalence
section?
11) We'd put references as appendix A instead of section
8.
12) The examples on page 1 can't be so "naked" and need more
explanation (just amplifying this again ;-)
So, here is our proposed outline:
1. Introduction
everything from old section 1 here
2. Syntax
2.1 Syntax Components
2.1.1 Scheme
2.1.2 Authority
2.1.3 Path
2.1.4 Query
2.1.5 Fragment
2.2 Character Encoding
2.3 Escaping
2.4 Relative XRIs
2.4.1 Relative XRIs
2.4.2 Usage of Relative XRIs
2.5 Internationalization
2.6 Normalization and Comparison
2.6.1 Normalization
2.6.2 XRI Equivalence
2.6.2.1 Cross-Reference Equivalence
3. Resolution
this section is probably going to get changed completely,
so no comment now
3.x Security Considerations
Appendix A. Normative References
Appendix B. Informative References
Appendix C. Collected ABNF for XRI
Appendix D. Acknowledgements
Appendix E. Revision History
Appendix F. Notices
-Mike and Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
Drummond Reed [mailto:]
> Sent:
Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:34 PM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [xri-editors] Groups
-
> wd-xri-specification-01.doc uploaded
>
>
>
Guys,
>
> We're rolling! The posted doc is the first draft of the
real
> thing from
> DaveM and I based on the outline we discussed
last week. It's
> been moved
> into the official OASIS template; all
proposed section headings have
> been added to the outline; and Section 1
has been filled in completely
> with a first draft.
>
> I'm
going to be cranking all day tomorrow on sections 2 and 3 with the
> goal
of having a first draft of both (or close) by COB tomorrow. I'll
> post
whatever I have by that point.
>
> The goal in posting this tonight
was to give all editors a
> look at what
> it looks like and start
to get initial feedback about the structure,
> tone, and general style.
Please do post any general or
> specific comments
> and/or propose
issues to be discussed on Thursday's call.
>
> Gabe, Peter: the
Resolution section is just a SWAG at what heading
> you're going to want
there, so that section can be replaced wholesale
> with the way you plan
to organize it.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
=Drummond
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Drummond
Reed
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 8:19 PM
> To:
> Subject: [xri-editors] Groups -
wd-xri-specification-01.doc uploaded
>
> The document
wd-xri-specification-01.doc has been submitted
> by Drummond
> Reed
() to the XRI Editors SC document
>
repository.
>
> Document Description:
> 01 draft for review of
structure and Section 1 by Editor's TC.
>
> Download
Document:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/downl
oad.php/26
60/wd-xri-specification-01.doc
View Document
Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri-editors/document.php?document_id=2660
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not
work for you, your email
application
may be breaking the link into two
pieces. You may be able to copy and
paste
the entire link address
into the address field of your web browser.
-OASIS Open
Administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe, e-mail:
For
additional commands, e-mail:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
unsubscribe, e-mail:
For
additional commands, e-mail:
