Maybe we need to restart this discussion, as I'm lost. I still
haven't heard a single technical argument as to what additional
information a profile name, outside the XML, contains that would not
be visible in the namespace and tag declarations. I was taught that
XML documents could stand alone, without additional meta information,
once you have pointers to the namespaces. Do you have a citation that
indicates that this is wrong?
I'm looking at Walmsley, "Definitive XML Schema" and it says:
"Instances can be related to schemas in a variety of ways ...
* dereferencing the namespace. The namespace can be dereferenced to
retrieve a schema document or resource directory."
In this case, this is a URN and all relevant schema will be known to
the receiver and we have a one-to-one relationship between namespace
and schema, so there's no ambiguity. (Walmsley points out various
reasons why an HTTP-like namespace identifier may not be a good idea,
but none of them seem to apply here.)
Also, as I mentioned before, XMPP seems to follow roughly the same
model as 4119. E.g., the core spec defines a schema and namespace
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-sasl and urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:xmpp-tls.
There is no profile indication, as far as I can tell, even for the
various extensions (say, namespace jabber:x:data).
Can you please provide a reference or other authority that supports
or explains your view?
On Apr 26, 2007, at 11:03 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:
On Apr 26, 2007, at 10:53 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
I've asked a few times, but why would LoST care that the civicAddr
is derived from DHCP as opposed to, say, entered manually?
Obviously, the current profile doesn't convey that information,
I don't think it should care. The point wasn't that it came from
DHCP, the point was that it was a 3825-like compound location.
Sorry if that was confusing.
Ecrit mailing list