RE: URI for XML schema and namespace

Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Sat, 05 January 2008 02:08 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 1JAySL-0001Am-Vz; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:08:13 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JAySL-0001Ag-1N for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:08:13 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAySK-0001AY-NE for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:08:12 -0500
Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.194]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JAySI-0002wP-7C for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:08:12 -0500
Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id m05285AV024853 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:08:05 +0900 (JST)
Received: from (133.2.206.133) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 182c_0d027590_bb33_11dc_8a34_0014221fa3c9; Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:08:04 +0900
Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.210.1]:53966) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S2D6C39> for <discuss@apps.ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:03:56 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20080105105045.074c6ec0@localhost>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:03:27 +0900
To: Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>, David Harrington <ietfdbh@comcast.net>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: RE: URI for XML schema and namespace
In-Reply-To: <BF4EFF66D86A25114BC4C81A@446E7922C82D299DB29D899F>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 1.8 (+)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: 'Apps Discuss' <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

At 08:46 08/01/05, Chris Newman wrote:
>As Applications Area Director, I'm not aware of anyone ever asking for that.
>
>I'm holding a discuss position on:
>   draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-08
>because the present text forbids use of IANA URLs and I consider that an unacceptable new restriction for IANA considerations.

Great, thanks. Please hold on firmly to this discuss until things
are fixed.

>Current IETF practice discourages use of IANA URLs in IETF specifications. However, we have one case, RFC 4790, where stable iana.org http URLs are provided to registry elements and that was done with IANA's permission.

I wanted to bring up this case, but I'm glad Chris has done it.

>In that case, the registry was created to be useful to both the IETF and the W3C. The stable http URLs make the W3C happier so it was worth doing that way.

Yes indeed. The W3C uses URIs for a lot of things. One reason is that
it helps to avoid registries, or allows decentralized registration,
depending on the way you look at it.

>I would support a similar approach for iana.org http XML namespaces if someone spent the time to write up the rules and get IANA's consent.

Great to know. I'd probably be able to help, or can try to make
sure somebody from the W3C can help.

Regards,   Martin.

>Using an ietf.org http URIs for XML namespaces is a bad idea.  The IETF has deliberately kept the registry function for our standards separate and I consider that a feature.  Also, ietf.org is operated by the Secretariat function so using that domain for registrations would require additional (and more expensive) coordination than iana.org.  It _might_ be feasible to set up a redirect from ietf.org to iana.org for XML namespaces, but I worry that's just one additional level of complexity where things could break (especially if we transition the secretariat function between vendors periodically as we're in the process of doing now).
>
>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.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp