Re: [xri] subject sets

[Nat Sakimura <n-sakimura@nri.co.jp>]

Drummond Reed wrote:

99DFA6E78176484F9058FE72C8548039@ELROND" type="cite">

I have finally read through this entire thread (which started when I was on
vacation). If I understand it all (which is not a safe assumption ;-), my
feedback is:

1) I agree simplicity is maximized if there is just an <XRD:Subject> element
with a single attribute, and that single attribute initially takes a single
value.

2) I'd suggest the attribute name "match", e.g., <XRD:Subject
match="beginswith">

3) No "match" attribute = exact URI match required.

4) Comparisions of Subjects across Links should be: a) exact match on the
URI value after normalization, and b) exact match on the attribute value,
all lowercase.
  

Why is b) ? In the destination XRD/Subject there need not be XRD/Subject/@match, I suppose.

99DFA6E78176484F9058FE72C8548039@ELROND" type="cite">

Hope this helps. I'll put it on tomorrow's agenda and hopefully we can close
this.

=Drummond

  

-----Original Message-----
From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran@hueniverse.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:46 PM
To: Scott Cantor; 'XRI TC'
Subject: RE: [xri] subject sets (was: Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT
Thursday 2009-07-16)

I think for now a perfect match is enough.

EHL

    

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 4:30 PM
To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; 'XRI TC'
Subject: RE: [xri] subject sets (was: Minutes: XRI TC Telecon 2-3PM PT
Thursday 2009-07-16)

Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote on 2009-07-28:
      

I think for our use cases, all we need is for the URI inside the
        

Subject
      

elements to match (using 3986 comparison rules). If one side has a
        

set
      

attribute, the other side must too.
        

The same value also, you mean? That's the literal/syntax match I was
referring to, my only question was whether that doesn't rule out the
cases
that would be easy and have value, like the one I was using as an
example.
But allowing for that ratchets up the spec work.

I agree that syntactic equivalence is simple to specify and immune to
extensions breaking it, yes.

-- Scott


      

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
    

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php