- From: Grosso, Paul <pgrosso@ptc.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:52:42 -0500
- To: "public-xml-core-wg" <public-xml-core-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xml-core-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry
> S. Thompson
> Sent: Wednesday, 2008 January 30 11:13
> To: public-xml-core-wg
> Subject: Draft comment to OASIS XRI TC
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> We have reviewed
>
> Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) Resolution Version 2.0
> Committee Draft 02
> 25 November 2007
>
>
>
http://docs.oasis-open.org/xri/2.0/specs/cd02/xri-resolution-V2.0-cd-02.
html
>
> Although falling largely outside the remit of this Working Group,
> there is one aspect of the specification which does concern us: the
> use of the 'xri:' prefix in the XML namespace names used therein.
^^^^^^
I find the use of the word "prefix" quite confusing here,
especially when discussing namespace names.
Perhaps we could reword (after the colon):
suggesting as XML namespace names strings of the form
xri://xxx given that namespace names must be URIs.
paul
>
> Although the XRI Syntax 2.0 spec. [1] has been a Committee
> Specification since late in 2005, we could find no sign of 'xri' being
> registered with the IETF as a URI scheme. Until this is done, it is
> perhaps not altogether appropriate to treat strings beginning 'xri:'
> as URIs.
>
> In a similar way, albeit outside our remit altogether, we couldn't
> find any sign of 'application/xrds+xml' or 'application/xrd+xml' being
> registered with IANA as media types.
>
> We understand that there is a potential circular dependency hidden in
> all this -- if you have held off on the required registrations until
> your specs are closer to full OASIS Standard status, perhaps you would
> consider adding a note to that effect.
>
> Paul Grosso,
> on behalf of the W3C XML Core Working Grouop
>
> [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15376
> - --
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2008 17:52:51 UTC