XRD 1.0 Committee Draft 01

Specification Document: http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/v1.0/cd01/xrd-1.0-cd01.html
Public Review Announcement: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/200911/msg00020.html
Public Review Period: 7 Nov 2009 -- 6 Jan 2010
Comment List Archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/

Comments

The following comments were received leading up to or during the public review period for XRD 1.0 Committee Draft 01. The official TC response, as well as actions taken if applicable, for each comment are provided inline.

Comments from James Manger (21 Oct 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200910/msg00000.html

4.1. Linked Resource Selection - uses poor examples.
2.1.5. Element <Type> - is of limited use, should be replaced with a <Property> element.
2.2.1. Element <Link> - should be aligned with HTML structure of using attributes.
2.2.5. Element <URITemplate> - remove note about handling unknown variable names.

Response: The committee accepted all the comments and made the necessary changes to the draft.

Comments from Blaine Cook (23 Oct 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200910/msg00001.html

2.2.1 - Link Element - should be aligned with HTML structure of using attributes.
2.2.5 - URITemplate Element - request to clarify language.
6 - XRD Sequence - request to drop the <XRDS> element.

Response: The committee accepted the first two items and made the necessary changes to the draft. The committee did not agree with the proposal to drop the <XRDS> element which is required for XRI use cases.

Comments from Santosh Rajan (8 Nov 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00003.html

Change the XRD definition from describing a resource to "describing a set of resources that is available to a given entity".

Response: The committee rejected the proposal as it does not represent the design and purpose of the XRD document. In addition, the proposed definition uses web architecture terms incorrectly.

Comments from Peter Brown (8 Nov 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00006.html

Have the requirements set out been met already by another existing standard? Namely, the ISO 13250 "Topic Maps".

Response: No, simplicity is a core requirement of XRD which is not met but existing standards such as Topic Maps or POWDER.

Comment from James Manger (10 Nov 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00013.html

Proposal to make <Subject> element required and allow non-URI subject types to use extension child elements of <Subject>.

Response: <Subject> provide an optimized element for the core XRD use case of describing a single resource identified by a URI. The proposal does not provide for other subject types directly. Extensions are already possible today which make this change largely cosmetic. The TC prefers the current definition of the <Subject> element, and has made changes to the element prose to clarify that.

Comments from Santosh Rajan (10 Nov 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200911/msg00020.html

Change the cardinality of <Subject> element to 1 instead of 0 or 1 (or at least make it RECOMMENDED).

Response: See response to previous comment.

Comments from Jonathan Rees (10 Dec 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200912/msg00000.html

Add support for the HTTP Link header 'anchor' facility which allows specifying a different context URI for the link other than the one described by the XRD document.

Response: XRD is currently in line with HTML and ATOM in not supporting this feature. In addition, the TC does not have use cases to justify adding the feature.

Comments from Santosh Rajan (12 Dec 2009)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/200912/msg00007.html

The <Title> element should be moved inside the <Link> element as attribute, as in ATOM.

Response: Unlike ATOM, an XRD document does not have a language context. XRD has to be able to express multiple titles in different languages per link. This cannot be easily accomplished using attributes.

Comments from Patrick Durusau (02 Jan 2010)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/201001/msg00000.html

Various editorial changes

Response: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/201001/msg00003.html

Comments from Joe Gregorio (11 Jan 2010)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/201001/msg00001.html

Expires element is not clearly defined, specifically with regards to the expected behavior of an XRD consumer when a document expires

Response: The committee accepted all the comments and made the necessary changes to the draft.

Comments from Martin Atkins (11 Jan 2010)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/201001/msg00003.html

Clarify relationship between Expires element and transport cache expiration dates. Specifically address the problematic case where the transport cache outlives the Expires element.

Response: The committee accepted all the comments and made the necessary changes to the draft.

XRD 1.0 Committee Draft 02

Specification Document: http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/xrd/v1.0/cd01/xrd-1.0-cd02.html
Public Review Announcement: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri/201004/msg00002.html
Public Review Period: 5 Apr 2010 -- 5 May 2010
Comment List Archive: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/

Comments

The following comments were received leading up to or during the public review period for XRD 1.0 Committee Draft 02. The official TC response, as well as actions taken if applicable, for each comment are provided inline.

Comments from James Manger (8 Apr 2010)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/201004/msg00001.html

register "xrd" as file extension on Media Type Definition (Appendix C)
update example signed XRD to include valid signature

Response: The committed decided to remove Appendix C from the specification, rendering the first comment obsolete. The committee accepted the comment regarding the example XRD and made the necessary changes to the draft.

Comments from Joseph Smarr (20 Apr 2010)

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/xri-comment/201004/msg00004.html

Add instruction to consumers to accept only the first <Title> with a given xml:lang per <Link>

Response: No. While multiple titles with the same xml:lang may not make sense today, it does not cause an interop problem, nor do we want to prohibit future extensions from taking advantage of this if need be.