Re: PIDF: 2 issues with examples

At 09:14 AM 4/20/02 -0700, Carr, Wayne wrote:
>2. There are two namespaces used for the impp presence namespace in the
>examples: "urn:ietf:params:cpim-presence:" and in one example
>"urn:iana:impp:presence:"  Is the iana one unintentional or is the namespace
>name changing?

If my suggestion is adopted, then the namespace is changing.

I have proposed in a message:

   Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:43:59 +0100
   To: IMPP WG list <[email protected]>
   From: Graham Klyne <[email protected]>
   Subject: IANA considerations for PIDF

that the appropriate urn namespace is defined by 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-iana-xmlns-registry-03.txt, 
rather than on 
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mealling-iana-urn-02.txt which 
was (my) earlier proposal.

This has resulted in the namespace formerly proposed as 
urn:ietf:params:cpim-presence being re-proposed as 
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:cpim-pidf.  The former approach assumes that a 
registry of cpim-presence names would be created, but now this does not to 
me seem the appropriate way forward in this case.

#g

-------------------
Graham Klyne
<[email protected]>



  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]