<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>This definition is plainly wrong. You can create a profile of XRD like that for your application/use cases though. <br><br>=nat<span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.231373); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.231373); ">@San Francisco via iPhone</span></div><div><br>On 2009/11/07, at 5:23, Santosh Rajan <<a href="mailto:santrajan@gmail.com">santrajan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>The problem is that there is no clear definition of what an XRD is.<div><br><div>My definition for a XRD; A XML Resource Descriptor that can resolved by a URI.</div><div><br></div><div>The <Subject> of the XRD is the URI used to resolve it. This is consistent with all the use cases I have seen so far. It also makes sense for a URI Identifier to resolve to its descriptor.</div>
<div><br>If we agree on the two definitions above then it is clear that the <Subject> of the host-meta is the URI used to resolve it. eg.</div><div><Subject><a href="http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta"><a href="http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta">http://example.com/.well-known/host-meta</a></a></Subject></div>
<div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:58 PM, John Kemp <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:john@jkemp.net"><a href="mailto:john@jkemp.net">john@jkemp.net</a></a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:42 AM, John Panzer wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
We have one compelling use case already where the existing <Subject> doesn't work: host-meta is "about" a host, and there is no URI scheme to represent Hosts (see IIW notes at <a href="https://docs.google.com/a/johnpanzer.com/Doc?docid=0AZojn6fzr_tFZGRqNjhzcXZfOWY1cXA3emY5&hl=en" target="_blank"><a href="https://docs.google.com/a/johnpanzer.com/Doc?docid=0AZojn6fzr_tFZGRqNjhzcXZfOWY1cXA3emY5&hl=en">https://docs.google.com/a/johnpanzer.com/Doc?docid=0AZojn6fzr_tFZGRqNjhzcXZfOWY1cXA3emY5&hl=en</a></a> for alternatives considered). The simplest thing that anyone can come up with for this use case that doesn't run into tripwires or pitfalls is a separate element, <hm:Host>, that contains a hostname.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Indeed, and that is a solution to the problem of how to represent a non (or not easily)-URI-addressable thing in an element which accepts only URIs.<br>
<br>
One alternative solution would be to:<br>
<br>
i) Allow both URI and non-URI content in the Subject XML element (define Subject to be a string, and then restrict it in various profiles of XRD)<br>
ii) Allow the Subject element to carry a semantic hint to those profiling XRD as to which type of Subject is 'meant' by the content of the element.<br>
<br>
Another solution would be to accept that the URI in the Subject is ONLY an identifier, and not a locator (of the Subject resource itself anyway). A strong hint there would be to use URNs (such as tag: [1]) instead of HTTP URIs. Such URIs can define their own resolution mechanisms, independent of the naming scheme.<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong, I think having an optional Subject is a pragmatic solution. I just think it de-values XRD itself to suggest that an optional Subject is an appropriate extension point, since (I suspect) the concept of Subject is shared by all users of XRD whether or not the element itself appears in the document.<br>
<br>
- johnk<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4151.html" target="_blank"><a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4151.html">http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4151.html</a></a><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Of course this element is only going to be recognized by host-meta-aware processors. And that's fine, because this is only valid for host-meta. But if XRD were required to have <Subject>, host-meta would be required to define some "dummy" Subject to stick in there and it would be stupid.<br>
<br>
Now multiply this by N, where N is the number of things that may want to leverage XRD. I believe the least bad solution is to leave the XML <Subject> element optional, while making it clear that there _is_ a conceptual subject for every XRD.<br>
<br>
(I really wish we had left atom:id as a SHOULD instead of a MUST in Atom. We immediately turned around and discovered a use case where a required atom:id causes problems and confusion -- creating new Atom entries via POST.)<br>
<br>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:12 AM, John Bradley <<a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com">ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a></a>> wrote:<br>
Santosh,<br>
<br>
It is too bad that you couldn't make IIW. I suspect we could have made better progress on understanding in person rather than iterating on the list.<br>
<br>
Yes it is better to air these issues before specs are finalized.<br>
<br>
At least in OASIS that is why all of the TC work is done in public and we have strict rules about public review periods and and answering all formal feedback before a spec can go to a final vote of all the OASIS members.<br>
<br>
I am personally trying to devote more time to the IETF specs like WebFinger and LARDD that are profiling XRD so that I can better understand there reasons for wanting to use elements other than Subject.<br>
<br>
While I am currently of the opinion that Subject should not be required in the XRD spec, that shouldn't be taken that I don't have strong opinions about what happens in the profiles.<br>
<br>
They are however different discussions, and I need to be mindful of what hat I am wearing in what discussion.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
John Bradley<br>
<br>
On 2009-11-06, at 7:54 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hey John,<br>
I was just kidding Shade about the "+1". You can give any no of +1's to Shade and I couldn't agree with you more. I know you guys are working hard on this,and I have great respect for the work you are doing.<br>
It is just that I have a strong feeling that something has gone wrong somewhere. Things just don't look right to me. Especially when it comes to the "Subject" Element.<br>
Looking a the whole thing positively, it is better that these kinds of arguments happen at this stage (draft stage) than after the 1.0 release. I am sure you will agree with me on this.<br>
Thanks<br>
Santosh<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:11 PM, John Bradley <<a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com">ve7jtb@ve7jtb.com</a></a>> wrote:<br>
I could give Shade another +1.<br>
<br>
I do think that he is clearly articulating the perspective of a majority of people who donate there time to create specs like XRD.<br>
<br>
Some have said that our attempt to make XRDS too specific to the requirements of XRI caused it to fork into XRDS-Simple.<br>
<br>
We are trying to learn from our past, along with the people who forked XRD for legitimate reasons to accommodate there use case.<br>
<br>
We are attempting to produce a spec that can accommodate new things like WebFinger without causing a fork in XRD every time someone comes up with a new idea they want to try out.<br>
<br>
Profiles of XRD will live or die based on there community adoption.<br>
<br>
Profiles of XRD are free to make Subject required. Profiles of XRD can define there own namespaces and extend XRD as they like.<br>
<br>
You can make formal comments through the OASIS feedback process if you have a problem with that.<br>
<br>
We will consider all feedback before XRD is finalized.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
John Bradley<br>
On 2009-11-06, at 7:19 AM, Santosh Rajan wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hehe Shade, you are not going to get a "+1" for this one. Somebody did give you one for an earlier post!<br>
<br>
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:40 PM, SitG Admin <<a href="mailto:sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com">sysadmin@shadowsinthegarden.com</a></a>> wrote:<br>
3) XRD with <Host> instead of <Subject><br>
<br>
Hypothetical, but plausible, scenario:<br>
<br>
A developer realizes they need to indicate something different from Subject, but that they may need Subject later on. To avoid that future conflict (where they would find themselves forced to declare ActualSubject instead of just using Subject!), they use Host instead. Communicating this to the 3rd parties they deal with, and getting them to modify their own code to interop, is up to the developer :)<br>
<br>
<br>
4) Someone might come along and decide lets have <Title> instead of <Subject><br>
<br>
They won't get to make a unilateral decision, though. If they can't present compelling reasons why anyone ought to switch from using Subject to using Title, they'll probably be ignored ;)<br>
<br>
<br>
5) Anyone can have anything else instead of <Subject><br>
<br>
If they want to, sure. How effective it is may depend on how many others they can get to accomodate their approach - and it may depend on how many others *don't*. Remember that security through obscurity actually *works*, in some cases; if they have an undocumented, hexadeximal-encoded, (weakly) encrypted Subject line labeled as another field, 99% of 3rd parties (having no reason to even *attempt* to figure out what Subject line IF ANY there is) will not pursue that any further.<br>
<br>
<br>
Is this your idea of future compatibility?<br>
Why is it so difficult for people to see that this whole thing is leading to a mess?<br>
<br>
We're blinded by this whole idea of "majority consensus".<br>
<br>
When you think that the majority's interests are in the actual *usefulness* of each spec, as defined by how many 3rd parties can be persuaded to practice the same methods (it's all about interoperability), your self-interest becomes self-limiting (it's all about enlightened self-interest): you don't want to exert too MUCH influence, making something perfect for YOU, because then it'll be too much trouble for everyone *else* (the Way of D'Shai is all about *balance*). The more accepting you can be of those who are different from you (it's all about tolerance), the more likely you are to receive cooperation instead of competition (Microsoft called this "Embrace and Extend"; pay it forward).<br>
<br>
-Shade<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href="http://hi.im/santosh" target="_blank"><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a></a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net">general@lists.openid.net</a></a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general" target="_blank"><a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general</a></a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<a href="http://hi.im/santosh" target="_blank"><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a></a><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net">general@lists.openid.net</a></a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general" target="_blank"><a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general</a></a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net">general@lists.openid.net</a></a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general" target="_blank"><a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general</a></a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
general mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net" target="_blank"><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net">general@lists.openid.net</a></a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general" target="_blank"><a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general</a></a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://hi.im/santosh"><a href="http://hi.im/santosh">http://hi.im/santosh</a></a><br><br><br>
</div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>general mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:general@lists.openid.net">general@lists.openid.net</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general">http://lists.openid.net/mailman/listinfo/openid-general</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>