Talk:Extensible Resource Identifier

message: The first bullet point says "URI- and IRI-compatibility — XRIs can be used wherever URIs or IRIs are called for." but this seems demonstrably incorrect - I tried a bunch of the XRIs included in the article in my browser, and none of them worked.  So I'm going to remove it if someone doesn't find a way to reword it that isn't obviously incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBray (talk • contribs) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features 

message: :“URIs … are the most successful identifiers in history.”
The identifiers “Rome” and “Athens,” and the whole “given name + family name” system of (human) identifiers have been pretty successful historically too.  Maybe this article should say “URIs … are the most successful identifiers in network computing history” or something like that.  Actually I think the statement is pretty dubious — who’s to say that URIs are more successful than the domain name system, or IPv4 addresses? —Fleminra 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in history" 

message: I added an "Unreferencedsection" template to the intro section, which contains a couple of paragraphs of claims about "it is increasingly important to..." presented as facts, without any supporting references.  Tim Bray (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unref section 

message: I didn't see anything too blatant, but the overall tone seems to be more pro-XRI than neutral.  Ojcit 00:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch neutrality 

message: If someone is going to identity themselves as an OASIS voting rep and then make the claims that they do in the statements above without revealing their identity so that the membership of the XRI Technical Committee, the directors of XDI.org, or OASIS staff may contact them and discuss their issues, I think that speaks to their credibility.
I am the co-chair of the XRI TC along with Gabe Wachob, formerly of Visa International and now with AmSoft Systems. I volunteer as the secretary of XDI.org. The chairman of XDI.org, Bill Washburn, is also the Executive Director of the OpenID Foundation. I am a named inventor on the patents. Anyone at Wikipedia can contact me via my email address listed on the home page of the XRI TC, or via my public contact page. 
The above statements are simply false, as are statements currently in the licensing section of the page we are discussing (I am about to correct them after I finish writing this). XDI.org has an exclusive license to the underlying patents. XDI.org contributed this license to OASIS as fully documented on the XRI TC IPR page. The XRI TC, chartered in January 2003, has always from its charter been in royalty-free IPR mode -- even before OASIS had such a mode officially. Once OASIS adopted its current IPR policies, the XRI TC adopted the royalty-free IPR mode (the leaders of the TC actually pushed hard for the royalty-free IPR mode to be even broader and more open-source friendly than it started).
Most concerning are: a) the reference to "the statement about offering RAND terms before the work is made final" (the XRI TC has never, ever operated under anything but royalty-free terms), and b) the reference to "nobody expects the group to ever finish" (the XRI TC has published 5 specifications and has just spent over 18 months on XRI Resolution 2.0, significant portions of which are now used by OpenID 2.0.)
Whenever IPR is involved, it is easy to use scare tactics. What's hard is to take IPR and dedicate it to supporting real open standards and services that use those standards. The directors of XDI.org and the members of the OASIS XDI TC have been doing that work for over four years now, and we urge any Wikipedia editor to review the facts and contact us if you have any questions whatsoever.
--DrummondReed 18:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Above 

message: Drummond, before you edit your own page again: it is your personal behavior under discussion here so why do you think that you can make an NPOV edit?  
No sorry, your 'IPR grant' does not say what you imply it does.  It is a statement that it is your intent to release the IPR. It is not actually a release. And the consistent failure to provide the promised release is the reason my company voted against making XRI an OASIS standard. The current IPR terms allows you and your backers to maintain control of the registry portion of XRI which is where the money is to be made anyway (if there is money to be made at all). 
And you edited out the rather pertinent fact that the non-profit gave your company back an exclusive license to the technology. You really should not be touching this.  -- 98.216.70.110 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  You should not be editing a page when you have a fiancial interest in it 

message: This article provides a pretty unbalanced account of XRIs. At some point I'm tempted to add views such as David Orchard's http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2008/05/30/detailed_technical_reasons_why_im_against_xris and http://www.pacificspirit.com/blog/2008/05/28/xri_solves_what_real_problems, and (on the business side) http://danbri.org/words/2008/01/29/266 from Dan Brickley. Bit nervous of blog posts, but these aren't unreasonable.
If anyone else wants to do, please do. I'm not a good writer. shellac (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There also needs to be some mention of the W3C TAG recommending against using XRIs, and the aftermath. Hopefully I'll find time to do this. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, you're right. That seems to have been lost when some vandalism was reverted (that section wasn't reinstated (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extensible_Resource_Identifier&diff=prev&oldid=266613580). I'll add it back in. shellac (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Create structured identifiers with self-describing "tags" that can be understood across domains the same way XML documents provide a self-describing, domain-independent data format.
XML is by no means self-describing (this is a common mistake), so I will remove that part of the sentence. Since the self-descriptiveness of XRI tags is compared to that of XML, I suspect that those tags are as well not self-descriptive.
Furthermore, please explain "understood across domains". Adrianwn (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-describing 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It rejoiced in two POV tags. I have removed the other one. William Avery (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Extensible Resource Identifier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513190900/http://gss.xdi.org/ to http://gss.xdi.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419112720/http://iss.xdi.org/ to http://iss.xdi.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified