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