• From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>
• To: Len <cbullard@h...>
• Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:58:20 +0200

I would agree that having a namespace be dereferenceable is a best
practice, but it is not a convention. For something to be a convention
I believe it has to be the conventional practice in a community, and
it is certainly arguable that it is not as yet conventional for all
markup languages to have dereferenceable namespaces. That said I
believe one could argue that is has become a convention for large
standards organizations to use dereferenceable namespaces.

Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen

On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Len <cbullard@h...> wrote:
> A convention or best practice would be putting a namespace dictionary or
> document at the location indicated by the namespace URI.  For example,
> yesterday we were analyzing an emergency service message which turned out to
> be CAP plus another namespace (ha) (really, the prefix is 'ha').  We are
> trying to track it down but there is no document at that location.
>
> len
>
>
> From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@m...]
>
> What conventions have formed in the XML community?  Are there any
> conventions that have become universally accepted?  Are there
> conventions that have been adopted only within a community?
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@l...
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@l...
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>

• References:
  • Convention versus standard
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Convention versus standard
    • From: "Len" <cbullard@h...>