Re: Model draft

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

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"
>