- From: ekimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:12:53 -0500
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, "Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@boeing.com>
- CC: "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
On 9/2/09 4:39 AM, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Tsao, Scott writes: ... >> The committee (we are participating in) seems to think that we >> should register a formal URN namespace for "global" uses like OASIS >> and S1000D have done [1], because that would allow us to use this >> unique namespace as part of our schema namespace structure for >> different schemas in different specifications. > > Why doesn't the same apply for e.g. http://[your committee]/namespaces/xxx? > > Which has the additional benefit that as I mentioned before, you can > document your namespace at that URI... I had been under the impression that the Namespace recommendation specifically prohibited namespace URIs from being resolvable to anything. But I see that in the 1.1 version it says " It is not a goal that it be directly usable for retrieval *of a schema* (if any exists)." [Emphasis mine.] Which definitely allows the use Henry suggests. I had always thought that URNs were preferable simply because they *aren't* resolvable by any generally-available infrastructure. But having a URL that has documentation at the other end of it seems reasonable. Cheers, Eliot ---- Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc. email: ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com> office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368 2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403 www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com> | http://blog.reallysi.com <http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 13:13:36 UTC