Re: [Geopriv] Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard

A different question:

Henning Schulzrinne wrote:
> Some additional comments on closer reading and a general comment:
> 
> This registry intentionally (if you look at the RPID document) is not 
> meant to directly extend the RPID schema. I suppose that one could add 
> that any location types added automatically become XML elements in the 
> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:pidf:rpid namespace. I don't know if that's 
> appropriate. 

Doesn't this make it hard/impossible to check if an RPID
document is schema-valid? (I mean keeping some element
names in a list that's not a schema.)

Perhaps that's not important for this application though.

Stephen.




_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf