URI for XML schema - why bother?

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Mon, 28 January 2008 10:34 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 1JJRJo-00030L-R8; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:34:24 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JJRJo-0002ye-1w for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:34:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JJRJn-0002xo-F2 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:34:23 -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 1JJRJl-0003rt-87 for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:34:23 -0500
X-Trace: 28077668/mk-outboundfilter-1.mail.uk.tiscali.com/PIPEX/$MX-ACCEPTED/pipex-infrastructure/62.241.162.31
X-SBRS: None
X-RemoteIP: 62.241.162.31
X-IP-MAIL-FROM: cfinss@dial.pipex.com
X-IP-BHB: Once
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAOg+nUc+8aIf/2dsb2JhbACKUKAN
X-IP-Direction: IN
Received: from galaxy.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.162.31]) by smtp.pipex.tiscali.co.uk with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2008 10:34:19 +0000
Received: from pc6 (1Cust138.tnt6.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.135.138]) by galaxy.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 023CFE00009C for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:34:17 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <00e701c86190$b25ec7c0$0601a8c0@pc6>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Apps Discuss" <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
References: <FB2B4EC3-BE66-4192-8657-F318BF9F0329@osafoundation.org> <00a601c84edd$2ca4dcc0$0601a8c0@pc6>
Subject: URI for XML schema - why bother?
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 10:32:20 +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: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
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

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.