On Jun 27, 2005, at 11:08 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At this point, the basis for Bryan's -1 vote can be bypassed by
allowing the old http://osafoundation.org/parcels/ syntax as a
backward-compatible alternative. Bryan's objection was that it would
be ''introducing the potential for conflict (however unlikely) with
someone else who arbitrarily breaks the same rule and picks
"parcel:"''. So, if this exceedingly unlikely conflict did in fact
occur, then the affected person could switch to using the old
http://osafoundation.org/ form and nullify the conflict.
To avoid conflict, wouldn't a 3rd-party instead use a URI of the form
"http://www.mydomain.com/whatever";, with whatever their registered
domain is? Or are you saying somebody working on one of the shipping
product schemas (one of us or a volunteer on the main codebase) would
use the HTTP scheme?
If we use XML namespaces, I am not sure we can restrict the types of
namespaces used. Since any URI is legal, a 3rd-party developer could
put "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:foo" (which does use a legal scheme ) or
even "mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]". We can lead by example, is all...
Lisa
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
