Arvola,
Sorry, as mentioned previously, I've been swamped
with the day-job and haven't been paying enough
attention. My bad.
The thing I have a problem with in using URN's for
the namespace is that many parsers want to find the
schema at the URI of the namespace. If we were to
use a URN there, it would necessitate that either
xsi:schemaLocation be specified explicitly in ALL
messages or else a mapping would need to be made
between the URN and the schema location.
Basically, (IMO) I don't think that use of a URN for the
namespace value is a good idea. I see no reason to
change the namespace from http://oasis-open.org/...
I *do* see value in using the URNs for the URI's we
have specified that are NOT intended to be resolvable
such as the MSH-specific service URIs.
Cheers,
Chris
Arvola Chan wrote:
> Chris and David:
>
> When I saw the message from Chris suggesting use of the namespace
> that OASIS has registered, I did a search in the regrep TC mail
> archive and found the following:
>
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/regrep/200111/msg00010.html
>
> I noticed the following declarations under the schema element in
> registry.xsd v 1.8
>
> targetNamespace = "urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-regrep:registry:xsd:2.0"
> xmlns:tns = "urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-regrep:registry:xsd:2.0"
>
> I thought it would be a good idea to get the ebXML-related OASIS
> specs aligned and to have consistent namespace specifications.
> That was why I sent the attached message hoping for feedback
> from Chris.
>
> Regards,
> -Arvola
>
>