RE: URI for XML schema and namespace

"David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net> Fri, 04 January 2008 16:16 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 1JApDy-0008Tp-4j; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:16:46 -0500
Received: from discuss by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JApDw-0008Tk-On for discuss-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:16:44 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApDw-0008Tc-En for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:16:44 -0500
Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.16]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JApDw-00077G-1y for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:16:44 -0500
Received: from OMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.51]) by QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Z1E51Y00H16LCl0050E800; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:16:43 +0000
Received: from Harrington73653 ([24.128.66.199]) by OMTA06.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Z4GY1Y00A4HwxpC3S00000; Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:16:36 +0000
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=nm2f_ct9wm0Dz89CVJcA:9 a=c7tlGeTfE12_kD1q38cA:7 a=7r2wZTz6hmKobGeuIqWDsC3UzbsA:4 a=nPLcb18tl68A:10 a=BntDIBrHCV4A:10 a=2uiCRmbCp6AA:10
From: "David Harrington" <ietfdbh@comcast.net>
To: "'Scott Hollenbeck'" <sah-ietf@tengwar.com>, "'Julian Reschke'" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
References: <FB2B4EC3-BE66-4192-8657-F318BF9F0329@osafoundation.org> <00a601c84edd$2ca4dcc0$0601a8c0@pc6><000001c84ee8$789307a0$0223520a@charger> <477E568E.8050307@gmx.de> <000201c84eeb$77c9e3e0$0223520a@charger>
Subject: RE: URI for XML schema and namespace
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:16:05 -0500
Message-ID: <104301c84eed$1bbd8500$6502a8c0@china.huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <000201c84eeb$77c9e3e0$0223520a@charger>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Thread-Index: AchO6gmSsf0uLKbvQf+fBRNMbdbakAAAG4SwAACQnZA=
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 386e0819b1192672467565a524848168
Cc: 'Apps Discuss' <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
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

Has anybody actually asked Ray to get such a  permanent part of IETF's
own web space allocated and setup? Would entries on the web site
require IANA assignment, e.g. as a registry?

I'm asking because I am new to the discussion, and simply don't know
the answer.

dbh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Hollenbeck [mailto:sah-ietf@tengwar.com] 
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:04 AM
> To: 'Julian Reschke'
> Cc: 'Apps Discuss'
> Subject: RE: URI for XML schema and namespace
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@gmx.de] 
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 10:54 AM
> > To: Scott Hollenbeck
> > Cc: 'tom.petch'; 'Apps Discuss'
> > Subject: Re: URI for XML schema and namespace
> > 
> > Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: tom.petch [mailto:cfinss@dial.pipex.com]
> > >> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:19 AM
> > >> To: Apps Discuss
> > >> Subject: URI for XML schema and namespace
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > > 
> > > Those folks looking at 3470 might have missed the third 
> > paragraph in 
> > > section
> > > 4.9:
> > > 
> > > "In the case of namespaces in IETF standards-track 
> > documents, it would 
> > > be useful if there were some permanent part of the IETF's own
web 
> > > space that could be used for this purpose.  In lieu of 
> such, other 
> > > permanent URIs can be used, e.g., URNs in the IETF URN
namespace"
> > > ...
> > 
> > Unfortunately, the IETF so far hasn't followed the BCP's 
> > advice to actually make http-based namespace URIs available.
> 
> As one of the authors of 3470 I can say very clearly that 3470
doesn't
> provide advice on this point.  It states fact:
> 
> "Typically (and recommended practice in W3C) is to assign 
> namespace names
> using persistent http URIs."
> 
> Notice that there's no "may", "should", "must", etc.
> 
> > Thus, if it's considered A Good Thing to provide a 
> > description of the namespace *at* the namespace URI - and 
> > when would it not? - I'd suggest to still use an http based 
> > namespace URL.
> > 
> > There are some IETF specs that for that very reason use URI 
> > assigned by the W3C (Atom, Atompub), and lots of other IETF 
> > specs use URIs on purl.org.
> 
> That's certainly a valid option.  I'm not saying that one is 
> better than the
> other. What I am saying is that people shouldn't think that 
> 3470 recommends
> one over the other.
> 
> -Scott-
> 
> 
> 
>