IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Review and URN assignment for draft-seantek-xmlns-urn-00

worley@ariadne.com (Dale R. Worley) Thu, 13 November 2014 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <worley@ariadne.com>
X-Original-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65BA1ACFD6 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:41:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A_Xl_9mn4ow3 for <urn-nid@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe21:29:69:252:207:35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F5E81ACFB6 for <urn-nid@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 12:41:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net ([69.252.207.108]) by resqmta-ch2-03v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id F8gz1p0052LrikM018hZnx; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:41:33 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com ([24.34.72.61]) by resomta-ch2-12v.sys.comcast.net with comcast id F8hY1p00W1KKtkw018hZqv; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:41:33 +0000
Received: from hobgoblin.ariadne.com (hobgoblin.ariadne.com [127.0.0.1]) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id sADKfWOq031020; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:41:32 -0500
Received: (from worley@localhost) by hobgoblin.ariadne.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id sADKfWp9031017; Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:41:32 -0500
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:41:32 -0500
Message-Id: <201411132041.sADKfWp9031017@hobgoblin.ariadne.com>
From: worley@ariadne.com
Sender: worley@ariadne.com
To: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>
In-reply-to: <E26AE05A-CD67-4D65-AC5C-73B46B23D338@seantek.com> (dev+ietf@seantek.com)
Subject: Re: Review and URN assignment for draft-seantek-xmlns-urn-00
References: <6A6694AE-BC9B-4058-8DE5-6B2FA8AE5B84@seantek.com> <201411111609.sABG9uE8008942@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <476745DD-A96F-41C6-9FAD-368FB8C33DE9@seantek.com> <201411121702.sACH2WPC027631@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <E26AE05A-CD67-4D65-AC5C-73B46B23D338@seantek.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20140121; t=1415911293; bh=jZEnezmxYDYBVvU8SIU4wBcb95+Koi0U7ICfScTFkro=; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Date:Message-Id:From:To: Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=NKfy1B2zYPTFw1Yz8sTZ0q1VYAWftX/3SFBxYBmahh6RCe+3hbYD3u0vYukVCa346 PgfLfkkr6fOx6YXn3duPTYW03yFtcdMtrGc4QPG2l3sRGOENMSoua5Uh4QA+8iCVev rpeg/U9ezVLXOI/GYLZmI34xif+d70ZU0krp7R2vEQdEkmwiZWU/LCZ5g0JY1msUL2 zdrt2/iFUgj9/kwmppcV4bKePPclRniBI00QuOlqnOMJWAuvOj+Sc7DGvAeb4aK7uG fZFYsTTHfywKpoKq5Fbm6KGo/sgnY2w/CmNRwzwn8BmO6RdOKq++csHBJ1Sw0eseN7 5iYc2HcOGtBaA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/urn-nid/ZwepdARfVcFjhNYTqRcjBD9O8vk
Cc: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: urn-nid@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: discussion of new namespace identifiers for URNs <urn-nid.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/urn-nid/>
List-Post: <mailto:urn-nid@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/urn-nid>, <mailto:urn-nid-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 20:41:36 -0000

> From: Sean Leonard <dev+ietf@seantek.com>

> One reason I wrote it was to deal with the brouhaha on urn@ietf.org
> about fragments (so-called “f-components”). XML namespaces don’t use
> fragments much, but RDF does. This proposal represents one attempt
> to deal with fragments in a systematic and URN + URI-compatible way.

That sounds useful.  But given that the brouhaha exists, you need to
discuss more explicitly that you expect to use these URNs (1) with
fragment identifiers and/or (2) containing fragment identifiers -- and
the consequences thereof.  I don't think you have to solve the general
problem, but since the general problem hasn't been solved, you have to
show that you've thought through all the aspects that could arise in
your envisioned use cases.

(BTW, are fragment identifiers used with XML namespace identifiers?)

Dale

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email