Subject: re a NID-for-XML request

From: Terry Allen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 16:55:02 -0700

At Michael Mealling's request I'm forwarding this message, which
may appear to subscribers to be out of context, to this list.
The NID request was for "ndw" by Norm Walsh for a name space
for his XML DTDs and similar material.  There has been response
to this message, which I'll reply to in the next couple days,
from the original recipients.  The wider issue is, where does
policy re NID assignment get set, and who sets it.

regards, Terry Allen

---

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:28:24 -0400

Terry, all,

Terry Allen wrote:
>  The wider issue is, where does

In fact, this is not an issue at all.

Policy is not set on the [email-masked] mailing list --  per
RFC2611, the purpose of that mailing list is strictly and uniquely for
input towards:

"clarifying the expression of the registration information and
 suggestions for improvements to the namespace proposal."

As I have tried to point out:  although people on that list tend to
have opinions about proposals (myself included) nothing changes policy
until the IESG changes it.  That may happen with input from this
working group.

And I believe the right way to determine if there is need for a
policy (change) is to give this WG the opportunity to see the
namespace proposal in question, not perceptions on a piece of a thread
taken out of context from another mailing list.

I've been waiting for the namespace proposal document to hit the
I-D archives (it was submitted in the last hours' rush on Friday);
at this point I'll dig an unnofficial copy out of my mail archives
if we're going to start the discussion now now.

Leslie.

--

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"My body obeys Aristotelian laws of physics."
   -- ThinkingCat

Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Martin J. Duerst" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:04:20 +0900

>I have been dismayed by the reaction to Norm's well intended
>proposal for a NID.  I would like everyone who sees policy
>problems with it to write up the policy issues involved, so
>that 1) future applicants can be forewarned of the attitudes
>of subscribers to this list, 2) we can ensure that all
>applications are tested against the same policy issues, and 3)
>we can keep track of just what the arguments are so they don't
>morph over time.

I haven't seen these objections, and so I can't say
much about them. My main purely personal objection
would be that it might make sense to have a lower
length limit for namespace proposals that are not
grandfathering existing well-known namespaces
(such as e.g. isbn).

>In short, let's have no more ad hoc objections.

Please take the above as generic.

>As for Leslie's desire for a more general solution for
>Norm's need for URNs, there are two considerations.
>
>  - There is no particular reason to think that URNs for
>         XML instances, DTDs, or schemas should be assigned
>         in the same name space.

Agreed.

>  - The institutions that are plausible candidates for supplying
>         such a name space are ISO, the W3C, and OASIS.
>
>         - ISO specified FPIs (the unique IDs we used to use for
>         SGML, which were ruled out by the W3C in favor of URIs)
>         in ISO 8879 et seq., but never did anything to establish
>         a registry of them.

This matches what I have heard on this issue, which is
not really that much.

>Eventually it granted the GCA
>         (Graphic Communications Asso.) license to act as US
>         registrar, but the GCA never did anything useful with
>         that power.  The GCA is also a dubiously competent
>         organization with murky governance.

Could you mention an organization that you think does not have
'governance problems'? It seems every single organization you
mention has them.

>         - The W3C created the requirement that URIs be used as
>         PUBLIC identifiers in XML instances,

No. XML requires that external entities
are identified either with the keyword PUBLIC, followed by
both an FPI and an URI, or with the keyword SYSTEM, followed
by an URI. In other words, the PubidLiteral is still an FPI,
but it cannot appear alone. Please see
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml#sec-external-ent.

>but has not
>         developed a name space for URNs for XML.

As you say above, that's not necessarily something that
makes sense.

>I understand
>         the W3C to have attitude problems with URNs, so I don't
>         expect anything on this front.

Let's put it that way: We think that many (if not most or all)
of the things you want to do with URNs for XML you could do
with (well designed and well managed, of course) URIs such
as http:. Also, we never excluded URNs from being able to
be used for XML, not at all.

>The W3C is also an
>         organization with serious governance problems.

If you could be more specific, maybe in personal mail,
that might be more productive.

>So Norm is left without a choice of name space to use a piece of.
>He is not acting from vanity, and it is incidental that he is
>acting as an individual (individuals do the work for organizations,
>and Norm would not be more reliable if he worked for an organization;
>he's very reliable as it is).  There may be technical objections
>to his I-D that require revision, but blocking his application
>is only going to bring this group into disrepute and leave the
>rest of use to conclude that there is no point in requesting
>formal or informal NIDs - we might as well just use experimental
>ones.  Is that what we want?

Agreed.

Regards,    Martin.