Re: pidf namespace, was: Re: [Simple] comments on draft-ietf-simple-rpid (long)

According to the RFC editor:

2003/10/29   draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08.txt
IANA
H. Sugano, S. Fujimoto, G. Klyne, A. Bateman, W. Carr, J. Peterson
Presence Information Data Format (PIDF)
Bytes: 55276

IANA seems to be taken its time, but it seems late to try to change a 
fairly basic part of PIDF at this time.

The only limitation of using targetNamespace that there can't be another 
extension that also defines activity, relationship, etc., just in a 
different namespace. From a practical perspective, this seems like an 
advantage, not a drawback. Having two IETF extensions that use

<foo:activity>
and
<bar:activity>

seems to invite confusion to address non-problems (lack of coordination 
[these are IETF extensions, after all] and shortage of English words).

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:

> I had forgotten about that bit.
> 
> Actually, the text in PIDF seems wrong to me. Here is what it says:
> 
>  Although the existing PIDF definition allows arbitrary elements to
>    appear in the <status> element, it may be sometimes desirable to
>    standardize extension status elements and their semantics (the
>    meanings of particular statuses, how they should be interpreted). The
>    URN 'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status' has been defined as a
>    namespace URI for extensions standardized by the IETF, and new values
>    in this namespace must be defined by a standards-track RFC.
> 
>    The following example XML Schema defines an extension for <location>
>    presence information, which can have the values of 'home', 'office',
>    or 'car'. If the <location> element were standardized, this document
>    would be made available in an RFC along with information about the
>    use of the extension. These extensions should use the namespace
>    'urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status', and each RFC defining an
>    extension should register an extension name within that namespace
>    with IANA.
> 
> This seems to suggest that all extensions actually have the namespace 
> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status, as opposed to being WITHIN that 
> namespace. That interpretation is supported by the example which follows:
> 
>   <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>       <xs:schema targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status"
>            xmlns:tns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status"
>            xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
>            elementFormDefault="qualified"
>            attributeFormDefault="unqualified">
> 
> 
> note the target namespace.
> 
> I don't think this is right; each extensions should have its own namespace.
> 
> -Jonathan R.

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
Simple@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple