RE: URI for XML schema and namespace

["David Harrington" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]] 
> 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:[e-mail]] 
> > 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:[e-mail]]
> > >> 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-
> 
> 
> 
>