The XRI TC has published their XRI as Relative URI proposal and it alleviates my concerns with the part of XRI that deals with the new XRI: scheme. I think it's a great way of doing what they'd like to do with abstract identifiers that fits into the web architecture. This removes the largest concern that I raised in Detailed technical reasons why I'm against XRIs, which was that XRIs were a replacement for URIs. I won't stand against this XRI proposal at OASIS, and I'd probably concur with a TAG position that said the TAG's concerns have been alleviated.
I think this has been really awesome work by the XRI TC to revamp their work based on external feedback. It's unfortunate that it ended up taking so long for the rework to happen, and the TAG had to take such a strong position. But I don't apologize for the strong position and my personal lobbying, because I think the end result is very strong technically. The XRI TC could have just tried to do a revote and pass their original proposal, but the leadership of folks like John Bradley really made for a superior result. Kudos to them.
I think this has been really awesome work by the XRI TC to revamp their work based on external feedback. It's unfortunate that it ended up taking so long for the rework to happen, and the TAG had to take such a strong position. But I don't apologize for the strong position and my personal lobbying, because I think the end result is very strong technically. The XRI TC could have just tried to do a revote and pass their original proposal, but the leadership of folks like John Bradley really made for a superior result. Kudos to them.
Having said all that, my concern that I think that the part of XRIs where people pay for i-names and i-numbers is a replacement for DNS/ICANN still stands. But in this new URI proposal, I think the market will decide very quickly that paying for alternative naming schemes is not worth it, so I'm prepared to let the market decide that issue.
Leave a comment