Re: Model draft
"Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com> Wed, 02 January 2008 14:09 UTC
Message-Id: <WED.2.JAN.2008.090948.0500.>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:09:48 -0500
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <joel@stevecrocker.com>
Subject: Re: Model draft
Comments: To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There appear to be two issues you are raising with the name space declaration in this document. One issue is whether the version goes before or after the model scoping. Because the schema and its semantics relate to the protocol as well as the model, it seemed to go in the order we have it (version, lfmmodel.) However, after reading your comment and thinking about it, I suspect that you are correct about the ordering, and it should be lfbmodel then 1.0. 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. Yours, Joel M. Halpern tom.petch wrote: > I think that the URIs are not quite right yet. > > As per RFC3688, the targetNamespace should be a urn, eg > > targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:forces:lfbmodel:1.0" > > and the schema needs a name if it is to be registered with IANA, eg > > "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:forces:xxx:1.0" >
- Model draft Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Model draft tom.petch
- Re: Model draft tom.petch
- Model draft Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Model draft Joel M. Halpern