Re: URI for XML schema - why bother?

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Mon, 28 January 2008 18:02 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 1JJYJc-0000Dj-FJ; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:02:40 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JJYJb-0000DY-MQ for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:02:39 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJYJb-0000DQ-CS for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:02:39 -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 1JJYJZ-0006fL-RL for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:02:39 -0500
X-Trace: 19009183/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: Ao8CAO+mnUc+8aIf/2dsb2JhbACKUaEW
X-IP-Direction: IN
Received: from galaxy.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.162.31]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 18:02:36 +0000
Received: from pc6 (1Cust112.tnt110.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.174.112]) by galaxy.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id E93EBE0000C1; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 18:02:33 +0000 (GMT)
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
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: -100.0 (---------------------------------------------------)
X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002
Cc:
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: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>om>; "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
>
>