Re: [Ecrit] Profiles (was: Consensus Call) - namespaces

[Henning Schulzrinne <hgs at cs.columbia.edu>]

I don't understand your comment. The namespace better identify  
completely the list of XML tags that are permissible, as something is  
terribly wrong with the XML validity otherwise.

I also don't see why a purely civic address would need a GML name  
space, but that's a separate issue.

On Apr 24, 2007, at 9:22 PM, Andrew Newton wrote:

> On Apr 24, 2007, at 9:04 PM, Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> > The receiver doesn't care that the format is derived from RFC  
> > 3825. The namespace declaration (which you elided in your example)
> >
> >   xmlns:cl="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicAddr"
> >
> > identifies the schema, so the receiver can easily tell whether it  
> > should ignore or handle the XML tags or not (or decide that it  
> > needs to give up instead). Thus, it can tell what meaning FLR has  
> > and whether it knows anything about that particular XML tag.
>
> No.  The way you are describing it, it must recognize both the GML  
> and the civicAddr namespaces.  And a 3825 based location profile  
> could easily use urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:geopriv10:civicLoc for  
> the namespace identifier.  It would be better if the sender let the  
> receiver in on what type of location it is sending.
>
> -andy


_______________________________________________
Ecrit mailing list
Ecrit at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit