Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
 Michael Brennan > > From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@h...] > > > > That's why I advocate that actual namespaces ought to be URIs that are > > clearly not URLs. That would discourage people from trying to treat > > them as if they were. Especially in examples. > > I agree, but it doesn't seem to me that the prevailing standards give > implementors very good choices in this regard. This whole URI/URL/URN/XML > Namespaces issue seems quite murky and confusing to me. It is extremely > counter-intuitive and confusing to the layman. > I tried out an xslt transformation using an arbitrary string for a namespace - even without a scheme part - and it worked fine (I forget which processor I used). That's when I really appreciated that we are essentially dealing with an arbitrary string (yes, URNs are supposed to have a scheme part, but it's still arbitrary). > ... > This one single issue is such a huge source of confusion and > misunderstanding that I really wish there was better guidance on this. Just > try to explain to someone who is not a regular xml-dev reader that > "http://whatever..." is just a name and doesn't necessarily point to > anything. All of the semantic arguments to this effect may be correct, but > they don't contribute to a good general understanding or making XML > standards approachable to novices (whose understanding of the web is shaped > by their use of web browsers, and to whom a URL is an "Address" or > "Location"). > > Right now, our plan is to abandon our URN approach and move to URLs, > following the lead of recent standards from the W3C and industry > consortiums. If there is a better way, I would love to hear about it. And I > would add that I hate the various schemes I've seen proposed for URIs based > on UUIDs or similar schemes. Domain names are something that everyone > (pretty much) understands at this point, and I want a naming mechanism that > builds upon DNS. Maybe we need a new "name:" URI scheme? Yes, that would be good. Personally, I don't think it matters at this point whether any urn schemes and domains (if that is what they are) are "officially" registered or not, for the purposes of namespaces. I'd think about making up a scheme name. But if you want an "official" scheme, why not use data: or gopher: ? data: is perfectly legal, I think - there's an rfc for it - and I bet no one is going to try to dereference a gopher: url! Maybe there are some other obscure schemes. Plus, even a url can be "opaque", meaning that it is not supposed to be parsed by the standard url processor beyond the scheme - according to the rfc for uris. So you could actually put anything into (at least some) schemes. I wouldn't worry for a second that I'd get a conflict for data:tbp15:ns:ontology:type:transformation:trans2531 I bet you could copyright a urn if you really wanted to (oh, boy, that'll bring them out of the woodwork!). That might give you some control over others using it for unauthorized purposes. Might do until there's something better. Cheers, Tom P 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
