Re: URI for XML schema and namespace

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Mon, 07 January 2008 16:10 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 1JBuYO-0003DJ-R7; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:10:20 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JBuYM-0003Bb-M4 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:10:18 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBuYM-0003BT-CG for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:10:18 -0500
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.38]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JBuYK-0000Gz-QN for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:10:18 -0500
X-Trace: 8110421/mk-outboundfilter-2.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$MX-ACCEPTED/pipex-infrastructure/62.241.162.31
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 62.241.162.31
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAKbdgUc+8aIf/2dsb2JhbACoIg
Received: from galaxy.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.162.31]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2008 16:10:14 +0000
Received: from pc6 (1Cust9.tnt5.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.134.9]) by galaxy.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B7F6FE0000C9; Mon, 7 Jan 2008 16:10:27 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <021301c8513f$35f1fce0$0601a8c0@pc6>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
References: <FB2B4EC3-BE66-4192-8657-F318BF9F0329@osafoundation.org><00a601c84edd$2ca4dcc0$0601a8c0@pc6><000001c84ee8$789307a0$0223520a@charger><477E568E.8050307@gmx.de> <000201c84eeb$77c9e3e0$0223520a@charger><104301c84eed$1bbd8500$6502a8c0@china.huawei.com><477E5DA1.9040504@gmx.de><105601c84ef1$90d0d870$6502a8c0@china.huawei.com> <BF4EFF66D86A25114BC4C81A@446E7922C82D299DB29D899F>
Subject: Re: URI for XML schema and namespace
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 12:16:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Spam-Score: -98.6 (---------------------------------------------------)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Cc: 'Apps Discuss' <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
To: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>et>; "'Julian Reschke'"
<julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "'Apps Discuss'" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 12:46 AM
Subject: RE: URI for XML schema and namespace


<snip>

>
> To summarize the options:
> 1. URNs for XML namespaces -- present IETF common practice
> 2. non-IETF http URLs for XML namespaces -- acceptable
> 3. iana.org http URLs for XML namespaces -- nobody has tried this, seems
> feasible to me.
> 4. ietf.org http URLs for XML namespaces -- nobody has tried this.  I think
> it's a bad idea.
>
>                 - Chris

The I-D that prompted me to raise this, draft-ietf-forces-model-09.txt, contains

 <xsd:schema xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
       xmlns="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
       xmlns:lfb="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
       targetNamespace="http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel"
       attributeFormDefault="unqualified"
       elementFormDefault="qualified">
      <xsd:annotation>

so ForCES might be trying 4) (and I am trying to persuade them otherwise).

Tom Petch

<snip>