[saag] Re: Relative OIDs are the simpler form of OID (Re : A simpler form of OID)

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 6:16 PM Christian Huitema <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> On 9/18/2025 4:20 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 03:32:37PM -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> >> OK, so I do want to keep hold of my 'can type identifier in BASE-32'
> >> constraint. Because that allows an identifier to be read over a
> telephone.
> > This is a UI issue.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Identifiers do leak into the UI, and there is some
> beauty in identifiers being WYSIWIG -- or rather, what you read over the
> phone is what you get, as Phill said. So I understand the beauty of an
> identifier made of a series of easy to read character strings. But why
> insist on Base32? Don't we already have identifiers made of series of
> easy to read alpha-numeric strings nicely separated by dots?
>

DNS Names are Names, signifiers of type thirdness that have a purely
conventional relation to the signified.

These identifiers are mostly Indexical, signifiers of type secondness
having a direct relationship to the thing signified and a few are direct
being the thing signified.

_______________________________________________
saag mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]