Subject: [Simple] Liaison Statement from the Open Mobile Alliance

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:12:24 -0500

(as SIMPLE co-chair)

OMA sent a liaison statement to the SIMPLE working group. The  
statement's overview reads as follows:

"This Liaison Statement reports XML validation problems in the XML  
schemas that were introduced in RFC 4826 and asks for correction."

Please read the LS, and send your opinions to the SIMPLE list. A PDF   
is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file707.pdf

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:00:54 +0300

> is available at https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file707.pdf

I looked at the statement, and except the copy-paste bugs of IANA files
from rfc4826, there's a proposal to add a "schemaLocation" attribute to
rls-services schema. This attribute value provides a hint from the
author to a processor regarding the location of a schema document. It is
an optional value which may help the validation task. Typically however,
validators have some means to combine multiple schemas (e.g.
<http://validate.openlaboratory.net/> does also some magic with multiple
schemas), and as such it has also security implications (if tools e.g.
try to fetch some external schemas). So imo, in any sane practical
service, you'll disable these hints. So they _can_ exist in specs, but
they don't help practical work where you must most likely anyhow tweak
with these uris. (and fyi, my preference is to use the registered urn's
which don't much help practical work either) 

br, Jari

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:39:51 -0500

>> statement's overview reads as follows:

[...]

> which don't much help practical work either)

Am I correct in assuming the schemaLocation attribute is also not in  
the version in the RFC? (I guess that would be a tricky thing to put  
in an RFC due to document lifetime issues.)

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Jari Urpalainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:55:59 +0300

> in an RFC due to document lifetime issues.)
Right, it is not there, i.e. the rfc is ok. 

br, Jari

---

From: "Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:42:55 +0200

Hi all,

SchemaLocation refers to where documents are stored.

Therefore it makes sense to add it to the schema document instances in
the IANA repository, but it is not required to add it to the RFC.

Kind regards,
Uwe 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext Jari Urpalainen
> Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 11:56 AM
> To: ext Ben Campbell
> Cc: [email-masked]; Simple WG; Dean Willis
> Subject: Re: [Simple] Liaison Statement from the Open Mobile Alliance
> 
> > > I looked at the statement, and except the copy-paste bugs 
> of IANA  
> > > files
> > > from rfc4826, there's a proposal to add a 
> "schemaLocation" attribute  
> > > to
> > > author to a processor regarding the location of a schema 
> document.  
> > > It is
> > > with these uris. (and fyi, my preference is to use the 
> registered  
> > > urn's
> _______________________________________________
> Simple mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
>

---

From: "Thomson, Martin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:32:34 +0800

Having dealt with a similar problem in an OMA group just recently, their approach requires a published location.

I support Jari's approach.  In general, managing schema documents is the responsibility of an implementation.  It's not really all that hard.

--Martin

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Sent: Friday, 16 October 2009 9:43 PM
> To: ext Jari Urpalainen; ext Ben Campbell