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

[Jonathan Rosenberg <[e-mail]>]

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.

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:

> Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
> 
>>> The namespace URIs for these elements defined by this specification
>>>    are URNs [2], using the namespace identifier 'ietf' defined by [3]
>>>    and extended by [5]:
>>>
>>>       urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid-status
>>>       urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid-tuple
>>
>>
>>
>> You might want to mention the motivation for multiple namespaces (I'm 
>> not sure I recall what it is).
> 
> 
> This is based on Section 4.2.5 of 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-08.txt
> 
> 

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[e-mail]                     FAX:   [phone]
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: [phone]
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple