RE: URI for XML schema - why bother?

"Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com> Mon, 28 January 2008 11:35 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 1JJSH9-0000DH-2v; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:35:43 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JJSH8-0000Ar-85 for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:35:42 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJSH7-0008TS-Ll for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:35:41 -0500
Received: from nj300815-nj-outbound.net.avaya.com ([198.152.12.100] helo=nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJSH6-0005dA-DD for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:35:41 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,259,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="95673846"
Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by nj300815-nj-outbound.avaya.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 06:35:37 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,259,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="154861371"
Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.16]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 06:23:23 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: URI for XML schema - why bother?
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:22:52 +0100
Message-ID: <EDC652A26FB23C4EB6384A4584434A04854BED@307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com>
In-Reply-To: <00e701c86190$b25ec7c0$0601a8c0@pc6>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: URI for XML schema - why bother?
Thread-Index: AchhmXFkuv9prU0XRImHEG6k6ksZkwABpg6g
References: <FB2B4EC3-BE66-4192-8657-F318BF9F0329@osafoundation.org><00a601c84edd$2ca4dcc0$0601a8c0@pc6> <00e701c86190$b25ec7c0$0601a8c0@pc6>
From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca@avaya.com>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>, "Apps Discuss" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc:
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

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

Dan


 
 

> -----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
> 
>