Drummond Reed wrote: > Yes, Marty Schleiff at Boeing is working on an RFC for how to represent XRIs > in an LDAP directory for that very reason -- to establish standard OIDs for > this attribute. LDAP already has a URI attribute type, but downcasting an > XRI into a URI just to squeeze it into that attribute type loses the > semantics that the XRI is an abstract identifier for the resource. So Boeing > wants to establish OIDs for primary-xri (value of the canonical XRI) and > alt-xri (value of any other XRI synonym). >
This is perhaps a bit of a tangent, but what are the disadvantages to representing XRI as a URI? It seems to me that having two completely orthogonal sorts of identifier rather than having one be a "subset" of the other just makes things needlessly complex. What makes you consider XRI to be an "abstract identifier" but a URI not to be? The whole thing of just starting with an equals sign is very cute, but surely that's just a shorthand to avoid writing "xri://" in contexts where it's unambiguous, much like people routinely write things like "www.google.com" when an "http:" URI is expected. _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
