RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis

From
Dave McAlpin <>
Date
2004-08-19T06:01:18+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis
Title: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis

I'm sorry I haven't tracked this very closely, but I think we should define two categories of delimiters - those whose semantics we define (xri-gen-delims) and those we reserve as delimiters but whose semantics are undefined (xri-sub-delims).

-----Original Message-----

From: Drummond Reed [mailto:]

Sent: Wed 8/18/2004 7:20 PM

To: Dave McAlpin; 'Lindelsee, Mike '; 

Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis

Agreed. Then, Dave, do you agree with Mike's suggestion of creating a new

"delims" category for xri-auth-delims?

I'm beginning to wonder if the generalized treatment of subsegments in the

proposed XRI 1.1 path is worth the trouble. Would it be simpler to just

define * and ! as the two sub-delimins and then let the other subdelims be

part of the path? That way they will be available for all producer-specific

algorithms anyway

Mike, do you think it would be simpler to just have an "xri-path-delim"

production for * and ! ? In that case the XRI authority segment and the path

segments could go back to being the same.

Mike, one thing that occurred to me this morning: we can't eliminate null

subsegments in the XRI authority segment without knocking out using ! after

a GCS character (e.g., "@!1234"), as by the current BNF, ! is proceeded by a

null subsegment. We'd either have to otherwise change the BNF to support

that (taking us back into "decorator" land) or simply have tight resolution

rules about null subsegments.

=Drummond

  _____ 

From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 2:51 PM

To: Lindelsee, Mike ; 

Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis

Unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise, I'd suggest that we move

"*" and "!" back to xri-gen-delims.

Dave

-----Original Message-----

From: Lindelsee, Mike  [mailto:]

Sent: Wed 8/18/2004 1:13 PM

To: 

Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis

Do you think that we should place "*" and "!" in gen-delims then?  Or are my

proposed changes ok as they stand?

Mike

-----Original Message-----

From: Dave McAlpin [mailto:]

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 12:58 AM

To: Lindelsee, Mike ; 

Subject: RE: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis

I intentionally included xri-sub-delims in xri-pchar, and this was correct

in the original ABNF. Since then, someone moved sub-segment delimiters from

xri-gen-delims to xri-sub-delims. I think this is just a misunderstanding of

what I intended for xri-sub-delims. The idea (borrowed from 2396bis), is

that xri-gen-delims are delimiters for which we define semantics and are

reserved for the purpose defined in the spec. In contrast, xri-sub-delims

are reserved as delimiters with no defined semantics, intended for processor

specific algorithms.

Dave

-----Original Message-----

From: Lindelsee, Mike  [ mailto:]

Sent: Tue 8/17/2004 4:23 PM

To: 

Subject: [xri] Initial proposed XRI 1.1 ABNF and issues analysis

I've taken a look at the proposed ABNF and would like to recommend a couple

of changes.  First, I think we should be relatively strict in the authority

part and restrict the segment delimiters to only those that are valid

delimiters.  My concern is that showing other delimeters in the authority

part will imply to people reading the ABNF that those delimiters might have

some sort of meaning.  The second change is to remove the support for null

segments in the authority part.  While there is an XDI use for null segments

in the path part, it doesn't seem to be needed in the authority part.  And

not allowing null segments in the authority part helps to keep resolution as

simple as possible.

I also noticed what might be a bug -- the inclusion of xri-sub-delims in the

xri-pchar production.  This allows segment delimiters to be embedded within

segments.  I don't think that this makes sense (Dave, please correct me if

I'm wrong on this).

Mike

Proposed changes to the updated XRI ABNF

----------------------------------------

(change)        xri-sub-delims  =  xri-auth-delims /  xri-path-delims

(add)           xri-auth-delims =  "!"  /  "*"

(add)           xri-path-delims =  "&" / ":" / ";" / "," / "'"

(remove)        xri-segment             =  sub-segment  *( xri-sub-delims

sub-segment )

(add)           xri-auth-segment        =  auth-sub-segment  *(

xri-auth-delims auth-sub-segment )

(add)           xri-path-segment        =  path-sub-segment  *(

xri-sub-delims path-sub-segment )

(change)        XRI-authority   =  ( gcs-char [ xri-auth-segment ] ) /

xref-authority

(change)        relative-path   =  xri-path-segment * ( "/" xri-path-segment

) [ "?" xri-query ]

                                           [ "#" xri-fragment ]

(change)        xref-authority  =  xref  *( xri-auth-delims auth-sub-segment

)

(remove)        sub-segment             =  ( *xri-pchar / xref )

(add)           auth-sub-segment        =  ( 1*xri-pchar /  xref )

(add)           path-sub-segment  =  ( *xri-pchar / xref )

(change-bug)xri-pchar           =  xri-unreserved / pct-encoded

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the

OASIS TC), go to

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/xri/members/leave_workgroup.php

.