Re: algorithm URIs

On 2 Mar 2010, at 17:25, Pratik Datta wrote:

> We are ready to coin a URI.
> I am ok with what you proposed i.e. "http://www.w3.org/2010/xml-c14n2"
> 
> What do you think of the current new Transform model URI
> "http://www.w3.org/2010/xmlsec/xmldsig2#newTransformModel"

Too long.  Again, if it's experimental, let's use the /2008/xmlsec/experimental namespace; if we think it's gelled sufficiently, let's coin something directly in /2010.

(Not having looked at dsig2 in detail recently, I wonder whether we define even more identifiers there?  If yes, then something like /2010/xmldsig2#... would be appropriate as a namespace URI.)

> 
> Pratik
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:tlr@w3.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:00 AM
> To: Pratik Datta
> Cc: Thomas Roessler; public-xmlsec@w3.org Public List
> Subject: algorithm URIs
> 
> Pratik,
> 
> I didn't want us to descend into bikeshedding the URIs on the call. ;-)
> 
> I'd prefer to avoid /2010/xmlsec as a part of the namespace, and keep those URIs short.  Therefore, I suggest that -- if we think we're ready to coin a URI for C14N 2.0 -- that should be /2010/xml-c14n2.  If we don't think we're ready yet to coin a URI, we should use /2008/xmlsec/experimental#c14n2 or something like that; we had allocated /2008/xmlsec/experimental for experimental identifiers.  See the list of namespaces here:
> 	http://www.w3.org/2008/xmlsec/namespaces.html
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> --
> Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2010 16:32:29 UTC