Re: draft-freed-sieve-in-xml status?

["Robert Burrell Donkin" <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Ned Freed <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > AFAIK the specific namespace prefix that gets bound to the namespace name is
>> > not something that can or should be standardized. Rather, it is declared on a
>> > per-document basis using an xmlns attribute. Any agent out there that supports
>> > namespaces should support the use of xmlns to pick whatever prefix a given
>> > document binds to the urn:ietf:params:xml:sieve namespace.
>
>> this choice of namespace prefix is the root cause of incompatibility
>> between namespace aware and unaware parsers
>
>> for example, 'sieve:abc' is just a name to unaware parsers while aware
>> parsers understand this as a namespace prefix and a local part. the
>> namespace prefix is resolved to a URI and that is used as the basis of
>> comparison. specifing a standard prefix (for example, sieve) ensures
>> that in both cases equality works as expected.
>
> This is finally something I can understand as a rationale for wanting
> to define a standard namespace prefix.
>
> This doesn't appear to be specific to Sieve-in-XML either - if this makes sense
> it should be something we're doing in similar XML specifications. So the first
> thing I did was check out a bunch of other RFCs - not an exhaustive search but
> I did check a dozen or so - to see if this has been done and if so, how. But
> AFAICT this has not been done elsewhere. The closest thing to it are statements
> of the general form "this document uses the prefix foo to identify the bar
> namespace throughout". This falls far short of a "MUST use foo: as the
> namespace prefix" or even a SHOULD. In fact some RFCs go out of their way to
> make it clear the use of a particular prefix is NOT being standardized.
>
> For example, RFC 5023 (ATOM) has this to say:
>
>  This specification uses the prefix "app:" for the namespace name. The prefix
>  "atom:" is used for "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom", the namespace name of the
>  Atom Syndication Format [RFC4287]. These namespace prefixes are not
>  semantically significant.
>
> Note that last sentence and the lack of any compliance language.
>
> In other words, this is apparently not current practice for IETF use of XML.
> But should it be? I decided the answer to this general question is a little
> above my pay grade. Fortunately, the IETF has this thing called the XML
> directorate, where people with XML issues can reach out to folks with real
> expertise.
>
> I sent a query to the directorate yesterday, which included your statement
> verbatim, and received two responses almost immediately, from Tim Bray and Lisa
> Dusseault. (Tim you probably know - he's one of the coauthors of the XML
> namespace specification, among other stuff. And Lisa is the area director
> responsible for this WG.) I've asked for permission to resend their responses
> to the Sieve WG, but in the meantime what I can say is that both were opposed
> to doing this on the grounds that prefixes cannot be tied down this way because
> of the potential for conflicts.
>
> Given the apparently lack of stated support from others in the group and the
> lack of support for this from the directorate, I now regard this issue
> as closed.

so, just to ensure i understand this issue - you've decided to support
namespaces fully and drop support for namespace unaware parsers?

(FWIW this is fine by me)

- robert