Re: URI for XML schema and namespace

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

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=
Message-ID: <517bf110801040758l1e304856i8ade84f1c98eefed@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 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>
Cc:
Precedence: list
Reply-To: tbray@textuality.com
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

URI for XML schema - why bother? tom.petch
URI for XML schema and namespace tom.petch
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace Scott Hollenbeck
Lisa's Apps Area activity for Dec 2007 Lisa Dusseault
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Julian Reschke
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Tim Bray
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace Scott Hollenbeck
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Julian Reschke
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace David Harrington
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Peter Saint-Andre
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Julian Reschke
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Peter Saint-Andre
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Julian Reschke
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace David Harrington
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Julian Reschke
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace Scott Hollenbeck
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace Scott Hollenbeck
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace Scott Hollenbeck
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Peter Saint-Andre
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Julian Reschke
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Tim Bray
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace Chris Newman
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Tim Bray
RE: URI for XML schema and namespace Martin Duerst
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Stephane Bortzmeyer
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace tom.petch
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Chris Newman
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace Martin Duerst
Re: URI for XML schema and namespace tom.petch
RE: URI for XML schema - why bother? Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Re: URI for XML schema - why bother? tom.petch