Re: URI for XML schema and namespace

"Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> Fri, 04 January 2008 15:58 UTC

Return-path: <discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAovv-0004v7-Cl; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:58:07 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JAovu-0004v2-So for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:58:06 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAovu-0004uu-J2 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:58:06 -0500
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com ([209.85.146.176]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAovs-0006nv-BE for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:58:06 -0500
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m16so9590140waf.20 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:58:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; bh=K3KdeGRxCE3o5sFOp1PSkRAUG2Jhk1JBwq1bWbtuCPw=; b=GbWuvO/lu2wy42yQ/kl1SoeRcxsPAnrYb01TYjBI0m9pAolkHDkREcZLyT3XB26jrOY4LlgEoI/l5erzHqno5FP3q3RF4XYrDbAcnnI/cB5bDikZj4cyfRSROOaHr4mXBS0N0BPyDR4Qrwf4kWdsyhK+RghcFmr3um4Zn2EMSJc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=MEdQvHDjGZRGE1TZlWOwrT5Fp2BIniPuok4YtjBUsVtUfb0cpFebmnq4/IpbjboimQiFRgZ/5yCa+Xg8Yp56y6HuAHpzA5zYetNYL/ctRD7HpymI8/QK5FgXPgrkuthojKYrB2DjNsa4C4yd/AJyFsBFynZLY2tTumHiVcFD6yE=
Received: by 10.115.88.1 with SMTP id q1mr15364586wal.98.1199462283677; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 07:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.161.15 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:58:03 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <517bf110801040758l1e304856i8ade84f1c98eefed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:58:03 -0800
From: "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com>
To: tom.petch <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>, "Apps Discuss" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: URI for XML schema and namespace
In-Reply-To: <000001c84ee8$789307a0$0223520a@charger>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <FB2B4EC3-BE66-4192-8657-F318BF9F0329@osafoundation.org> <00a601c84edd$2ca4dcc0$0601a8c0@pc6> <000001c84ee8$789307a0$0223520a@charger>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dc2ec37e5e71613d
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc:
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tbray@textuality.com
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

On Jan 4, 2008 7:42 AM, Scott Hollenbeck <sah-ietf@tengwar.com> wrote:

> > What is the currently recommended form for a URI for an XML
> > schema and an XML namespace?
> >
> > The question has come up on ForCES where I, citing RFC3688
> > say it should be urn:
> > whereas the others cite RFC3470 to say that http: is recommended.
> >
> > Other opinions welcome.

Well, the Architecture of the World Wide Web
(http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch) argues strongly that http: URIs are
generally useful on the grounds that they can in principle (don't have
to be, but can) be used to retrieve some human-readable explanatory
material about whatever it is the URI names.   Also the URI itself
tends to be a bit more human-readable, which seems worthwhile to me.

The downside, as Scott points out, is that if you want to do that, you
have to find a domain to put after the http:// part, and the IETF just
doesn't do that.  In the case of RFC4287 and 5023, we borrowed one
from the W3C.

 -Tim