[OpenID] [xri-comment] My Feedback for XRD Vrsion 1.0

[John Kemp]

On Nov 9, 2009, at 8:23 PM, John Bradley wrote:

> John,
>
> I am having a hard time with your argument that http: URI are not  
> sufficient for naming resources.

I didn't say that.

I simply said that using a string for the base type would make things  
easier.

>
> I would recommend you read the TAG findings on XRI and XRDS.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/URNsAndRegistries-50
>
> I will for the sake of argument agree with Roy Fielding that http:  
> URI can be used as names for any and all resources.   That is  
> distinct from them being used as locators for all resources.
>
> I fail to see a compelling argument for allowing strings in XRD  
> subjects and creating a registry of subject types. (been there it  
> didn't go well)
>
> Please don't take us down that road again.
>
> A XRD Subject, is a NAME it is not a Locator.

I understand, really.

>  Constraining Subject to a absolute anyURI is not unreasonable in my  
> opinion.   Subject can name information and non information resources.

It's not necessarily unreasonable to me either, but it does put the  
host-meta spec. into being forced to deal with URI scheme hell to meet  
the use-case.

>
> Subject is not always required because it could be specified in some  
> other way by the protocol using the XRD.  Profiles of XRD are free  
> to make it required.

Regardless of how the Subject is specified, it could be referenced in  
the document too. And if it exists, what is the reason _not_ to link  
to it in the document?

>
> If a XRD is retrieved via HTTP the protocol retrieving it may choose  
> to infer the subject (Name) is the Locator (URL).
>
> This is an XML doc if someone outside of the XRI-TC thinks they need  
> extension elements to describe the Scope of the XRD that is up to  
> them.  They define a namespace and have at it.
>
> Would it make you happy if host-meta had a subject ie:
> <Subject>http:/google.com/#host-metta</Subject>
>
> as well as the <hm:Host> elements to describe scope for the templates.
>
> Even if <Subject is not used for anything in the host-meta spec?
>
> Given the history you will not convince the XRI-TC to define Subject  
> to be something other than a URI.

Yes, that seems apparent. And it seems that host-meta will not get  
into the URI scheme hot water. I can't say I blame either group.

Regardless of my opinion, it seems that if neither side will change  
their collective minds, we're left with the status quo, and we'll have  
to settle on it as the least-bad alternative.

- johnk

>   That we didn't restrict it to http: URI will probably get us into  
> hot water in some places.

>
> Regards
> John Bradley
>
>
> On 2009-11-09, at 8:35 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: John Kemp [mailto:john at jkemp.net]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:14 PM
>>
>>> I believe that an XRD always has a subject. So far, I have seen no
>>> argument to the contrary, and the use-cases discussed all seem to  
>>> have
>>> a subject, even when it is called host.
>>
>> We agree on that. The question is only whether it is useful to  
>> define an element generic enough to support the wide range of  
>> potential subjects and still enable interoperability.
>>
>>> I do see a pragmatic issue about how the subject of an XRD is
>>> represented in the XRD document itself.
>>
>> What I am trying to convey is that from my perspective, the use  
>> case supported by the current <Subject> design is by far more  
>> likely than any other use case, and is the primary driver in  
>> developing XRD. I am reluctant to design an element without better  
>> requirements or use cases.
>>
>>> I agree that this issue is tough to solve, but I think providing
>>> common subject-related semantics at the XRD level with a measure of
>>> extensibility in the right direction is simply good design.
>>
>> I think that's what we have done. We just don't agree on how this  
>> extensibility should be provided.
>>
>>> I don't have any particular investment in XRD at all, so you are
>>> certainly free to evaluate (hopefully without further unwarranted
>>> ridicule) my arguments and decide not to pursue any changes.
>>
>> If anything I wrote came off as ridiculing your views please accept  
>> my apology. I have meant no disrespect. My request for use cases  
>> wasn't made as criticism, but an actual request for use cases.
>>
>>> - johnk
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> general mailing list
>> general at lists.openid.net
>> http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general
>