[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:dareo@microsoft.com]
<snip/>
> The most common convention I have seen is in use (at least by us at
> Microsoft) is
>
>
> urn:technologyarea-companyname.com:specifictechnology-or-speci
> ficproduct
> /morespecifics
>
> which is typically easily recognizable by most who see it as
> a namespace
> URI unlike HTTP URLs(some of which break the unwritten rules
> of the web
> by not pointing to network retrievable documents).
The only problem with this is URNs are supposed to have officially
registered namespaces [1], so this is really abuse of the URN scheme. To be
honest, though, we used to do the same thing here. Someone else here started
the precedent some time ago of using "urn:schemas-allegis-com:" as the root
namespace for our namespace URIs (I think because they were imitating
Microsoft's approach). I've been encouraging use of "http:" URIs instead
because this explicitly goes against the IETF's recommended best practices.
I haven't been able to sell anyone here, though, on the notion of putting
actual content such as RDDL at the end of the URIs (which I happen to
believe is a sound best practice).
Hasn't this gone out of favor in lieu of "http:" URIs anyway? It seems like
the newer namespaces used by Microsoft are increasingly using "http:" URIs
(although I haven't attempted any real survey).
[1] http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2611.txt
|
