Marty,
You asked "Can TAG members please clarify if their gripes about XRI
would dissolve if XRIs begin with "http://xri.net" instead of "xri://",
Formally, the TAG consensus is that the answer to that question is
"Yes", with a reminder that the Web Architecture says "A URI owner
SHULD provide representations of the resource it identifies" in [1].
Cheers,
Dave , for the W3C TAG
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#pr-describe-resource
Message
From: www-tag-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org [mailto:www-tag-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org]
Behalf David
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 11:51 AM
To: Schleiff, Marty; www-tag (AT) w3 (DOT) org
Subject: RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries
I think http://xri.net identifiers instead of xri:// would be
absolutely wonderful.
I had hoped that the finding, particularly section 5, would
show that http://xri.net identifiers have same or better
value than xri:// identifiers. Do you think we should
provide more detail to suggest using http://myri.org identifers?
Cheers,
Dave
Message
From: www-tag-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-tag-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] Behalf
Schleiff, Marty
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 10:43 PM
To: www-tag (AT) w3 (DOT) org
Subject: RE: URNs, Namespaces and Registries
<snip/>
As you can probably tell, I'm not as opposed as I used to be about
using
http: for XRIs. In earlier discussions and examples I kept hearing
that there is no need for XRI because everything can be done with
http, but none of the examples were satisfying to me (or
others on the
ASIS XRI TC). Now I'm hearing that one way to do what XRI does in
http is to just use something like "http://xri.net" instead of
"xri://" and keep all the functionality specified for
"<rest_of_XRI>".
Such an approach is much less distasteful to me than saying
there is
no need for XRI because everything can be done in http. Can TAG
members please clarify if their gripes about XRI would dissolve if
XRIs begin with "http://xri.net"
instead of "xri://"?
Thanks!
[1]
[2]
[3]
Marty.Schleiff