Re: [Geopriv] Re: Last Call: 'Location Types Registry' to Proposed Standard
Henning Schulzrinne <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.general,gmane.ietf.geopriv |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> Yes, unfortunately it does. Extending element sets seems to be rather tedious in the current XML tool set. Either you have the new elements extend the old namespace, yielding the problem you mention, or each new element (location type, here) gets a new namespace, yielding a namespace list a mile long if there are lots of extensions. > 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