Re: URI for XML schema and namespace

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Tim Bray wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008 7:42 AM, Scott Hollenbeck <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> What is the currently recommended form for a URI for an XML
>>> schema and an XML namespace?
>>>
>>> The question has come up on ForCES where I, citing RFC3688
>>> say it should be urn:
>>> whereas the others cite RFC3470 to say that http: is recommended.
>>>
>>> Other opinions welcome.
> 
> Well, the Architecture of the World Wide Web
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch) argues strongly that http: URIs are
> generally useful on the grounds that they can in principle (don't have
> to be, but can) be used to retrieve some human-readable explanatory
> material about whatever it is the URI names.   Also the URI itself
> tends to be a bit more human-readable, which seems worthwhile to me.

If http URI, type into browser location bar.

If URN, type into browser search bar.

I don't see a great deal of difference. :)

> The downside, as Scott points out, is that if you want to do that, you
> have to find a domain to put after the http:// part, 

... and ensure that the domain is stable, and that the people running 
the domain will reliably host your namespace, and ...

> and the IETF just
> doesn't do that.  In the case of RFC4287 and 5023, we borrowed one
> from the W3C.

FWIW, we Jabberites used https URIs like http://jabber.org/protocol/* 
for a long time but recently switched to URNs like urn:xmpp:* because 
they're more stable (what happens if the person registering jabber.org 
loses control over the domain?) and will last forever.

The choice of http URI vs. URN seems like a toss-up to me.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/