OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Namespaces and URIs (was: A good case for Namespace URIs)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Understood.  Many folks come to that conclusion at 
some point.  So, it comes down to "use a 
URN" except URNs allow the protocol morph and that 
starts the problem all over again because names, 
locations and identifiers are conflated in the 
WWW Holy Writ.  

That is why I pointed out the Public ID.  It's legal and  
it may be of some benefit to have owner, description, 
version information in there (authoritative contract).  
The argument comes back, "but I MIGHT want to resolve it 
and I hate catalogs" and the mess starts all over again.  

So, this comes down to the cost of preserving that option. 
If you want to avoid it, choose and then accept 
that by that choice, things like RDDL have to 
be gotten by extending the catalog.

We've always known it's a wart.  Would you rather 
process a SUBDOC?


From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@seairth.com]

Hmm... I missed this one.  Well, that would certainly be a good way to do
it.  However, I was just suggesting that if someone wanted to use a URL to
identify a namespace, just use a scheme other than the "http".  To avoid
ending up with a proliferation of new scheme names, we could just define a
common one that everyone can use. Whether the URL would be helpful in
locating schema documentation or not is another question.  The main point is
to avoid the use of the "http" scheme when using the URL format, which would
at least reduce the confusion caused in situations like


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS