At 05:29 PM 6/24/2005 -0700, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
XML namespaces are frequently set to HTTP URLs even though they might
well be unreachable. The use of a domain-name plus path is to help
ensure uniqueness (because we own the domain name) and the HTTP in
front is just to make it a valid scheme.
Which reminds me, "parcel:" is not a valid scheme -- some XML parsers
are going to choke on that. (I know that because they choke on the
"DAV:" namespace).
Then we can always abuse "mid:"; URIs instead. (E.g.
"mid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]", per RFC 2392), and if that
breaks, report a bug. :)
However, the XML namespace specification makes no requirement that URI's be
of any particular URI scheme, so I'd argue that a parser which only accepts
a limited set of schemes is unacceptably (i.e. stupidly) broken. I would
urge you to file bugs on XML processors that don't recognize DAV:, since
it's a syntactically valid URI scheme, whether there exists a registered
protocol of that name or not.
Of course, in the case of DAV:, I suspect you'll find that the actual
breakage is expecting URI schemes to be all-lower case, and not any
semantic validation of the scheme as such.
Also, Phillip, what is that going to mean for the use of prefixes in
parcel XML?
Nothing; the only developer-visible effect would be on URIs explicitly
passed to Manager.lookup(); they would need to be of the form
'parcel:parcel.name.here/desiredItem' instead of
'http://osafoundation.org/parcels/parcel/name/here/desiredItem'.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
