Re: URI for XML schema

Re: URI for XML schema - why bother?

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Mon, 28 January 2008 18:02 UTC

Message-ID: <06ec01c861cf$51f9a960$0601a8c0@pc6>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>, Apps Discuss <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
References: <FB2B4EC3-BE66-4192-8657-F318BF9F0329@osafoundation.org><00a601c84edd$2ca4dcc0$0601a8c0@pc6> <00e701c86190$b25ec7c0$0601a8c0@pc6> <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04854BED@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
Subject: Re: URI for XML schema - why bother?
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:45:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>; "Apps Discuss" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 12:22 PM
Subject: RE: URI for XML schema - why bother?


I believe that such a recommendation is implicit in documents like RFC 3688.

Dan

I don't see that in the RFC.  I see that it defines a registry mechanism that
can be used, I can read between the lines and see that a namespace URN will be
created if no URI is specified but I cannot see an interpretation that says that
a schema URN will be created if nothing is in the I-D.

Tom Petch

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom.petch [mailto:cfinss@dial.pipex.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 11:32 AM
> To: Apps Discuss
> Subject: URI for XML schema - why bother?
>
> Well, actually it was ' there is not point in having a schema name'.
>
> I asked before what form URI should take for namespace and
> schema, and I got a very clear answer, for which thank you.
>
> But in two separate WGs I have proposed that schema should be
> given a URI and it hasn't happened, in one case with the
> reply to the effect that they add no value and are not worth having.
>
> Instinctively I disagree and know of other WGs that do define
> them (although I also saw an I-D which used a schema URI and
> then removed it before becoming an RFC).
>
> So what rational arguments might I advance as to why it is a
> good idea to name a schema with a URI?
>
> Tom Petch.
>
>
>
>
> This email was protected during delivery to Avaya with TLS encryption
>
>

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