I strongly prefer http URIs. I find the W3C Web Arch is sufficiently motivating.
I haven't seen IETF documents that directly refute the Web Arch advocacy of http URIs for namespace names. I don't recall them sending in any comments on this during the Web Arch Last Call, so that seems like implicit endorsement. If there's some IETF vs W3C brouhaha on URNS vs http URIs, let them sort it out. And if the IETF won't help with http: URI assignment, I bet the W3C would. I idly wonder if you could use the RFC HTTP for the ns. Cheers, Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-atom- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Bray > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 3:17 PM > To: 'Atom WG' > Subject: Atom namespace name > > > I've been talking with Scott Hollenbeck, our IETF area director, about > IETF standard practice for namespace names, and he said: > > <scott> > The closest thing we have to a guideline is described in RFC 3688. I'd > recommend following the URN structure described in that document, but > that > leaves some freedom for the string used to identify the namespace. > Something like "atom-1.0" could work, but I'm open to suggestions. > > You can see the list of namespaces that have already been registered > here: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/xml-registry/ns.html > </scott> > > This would give us a namespace name something like > "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:atom" which is OK I guess. I said that I liked > HTTP URIs for namespace names because they leave open the door for > putting some helpful info there and for things like RDDL. Furthermore, > in RFC3470, which Scott co-wrote, section 4.9 agrees with me. So do > sections 3.5 and 4.5.4 of the W3C's "Architecture of the World Wide > Web". > > Scott acknowledged this, but told me that if we go with the RFC3688 > flow, there will be no fuss, no muss, and we'll get our namespace name > smoothly and quickly. If we wanted to stand on principle for an HTTP > name, we'd have to explain why to a whole bunch of people, and then > there's the problem that the IETF doesn't maintain web space for this > kind of thing, so maybe it should be in www.iana.org; anyhow, lots of > extra work. > > So... what's the sentiment of the WG? -Tim
