Re: URI for XML schema and namespace

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Tue, 08 January 2008 12:39 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 1JCDjg-0007Rn-Et; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:39:16 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JCDje-0007RY-PP for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:39:14 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCDje-0007RO-Fc for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:39:14 -0500
Received: from mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.37]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JCDjc-0007RW-J7 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:39:14 -0500
X-Trace: 14757602/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$MX-ACCEPTED/pipex-infrastructure/62.241.163.6
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 62.241.163.6
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAHb9gkc+8aMG/2dsb2JhbACpKw
Received: from astro.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.163.6]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 08 Jan 2008 12:39:10 +0000
Received: from pc6 (1Cust24.tnt110.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.174.24]) by astro.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id F1C6BE000098; Tue, 8 Jan 2008 12:38:46 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <000e01c851ea$e2b6ff60$0601a8c0@pc6>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>, "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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> <021301c8513f$35f1fce0$0601a8c0@pc6> <6.0.0.20.2.20080108104826.09b13570@localhost>
Subject: Re: URI for XML schema and namespace
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 10:49:06 +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: cd26b070c2577ac175cd3a6d878c6248
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: "Martin Duerst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>om>; "Chris Newman" <Chris.Newman@Sun.COM>
Cc: "'Apps Discuss'" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: URI for XML schema and namespace


> Hello Tom,
>
> Are they using things such as http://ietf.org/forces/1.0/lfbmodel
> as resolvable URIs or are they using them without planning to
> have them resolvable?
>
> Regards,    Martin.

Without resolution as far as I can tell.

To quote from an e-mail on the ForCES list,

> The second issue appears to be our use of an http uri rather than a
> field delimited urn as the namespace.  The use of HTTP URIs seems fully
> conformant.  And the use of web space URIs seems recommended by RFC
> 3470.  The use of URNs for namespaces is offered there as a fallback
> alternative.  So it is not clear to me what the problem is with our usage.
>

So RFC3470 was taken as recommending an HTTP URI; but, after the recent
discussion on this list, for which many thanks to all who contributed, I think
that ForCES will switch to a urn:

Tom Petch

>
> At 20:16 08/01/07, tom.petch wrote:
> >----- 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>
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
>