Subject: [Simple] usage of XML namespaces

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 10:19:52 -0500

Folks,

Having done detailed reads of our various rpids extensions, we appear to 
be all over the map in terms of our usage of XML namespaces. Here is 
what we are doing:

RPID:

  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid-status OR
    urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:status:rpid-status  [not sure which is 
intended]
  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid-tuple

CIPID:

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:cipid

future:

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:future-status

prescaps:

urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:simple-prescaps-ext

So, the questions are:

1. Do these namespaces all appear as children of 
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf or just urn:ietf:params:xml:ns?

2. If they are children of pidf, is there any additional structure to 
the namespace beyond pidf? That is, do we do something like 
pidf:status:rpid-status to indicate that something extends the status 
element?

I don't feel that strongly on either of these, but I think we should be 
consistent. I would propose for (1) the answer is children of pidf, and 
for (2) I would propose no structure beyond that. The namespace 
hierarchy, I think, should follow the proposed schema hierarchy. So, if 
an extension defines an extension to schema foo, its namespace should be 
a child of that for schema foo.

Thoughts?

-Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple