Robert Sayre schrieb:
... Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I recently asked, so I'll repeat it here. I am concerned that purl.org lists the document author as the owner of the namespace URI, and I wonder how the IESG came to the conclusion that the namespace is not a problem. I see Sam Hartman raised the issue. What was the resolution? Could the draft advance to Draft- or Full-Standard in that namespace? ...
Although I share Robert's concerns about how this spec became a Proposed Standard, I really have trouble to see the issue here. As a matter of fact, I'm using a purl.org URL in one of my (non-Atom related) drafts as well.
What we're talking about here is not change control over the namespace or the namespace name! It's about what happens if an HTTP client dereferences that URL, which is irrelevant for the purpose of XML namespaces. My (and I assume also James') assumption is that once the specification is out, the purl.org HTTP URL will be reconfigured so that it redirects to a URL identifying the actual RFC (preferably to readable HTML :-).
All of this is only necessary because the IETF insists in not minting HTTP URLs themselves. I think the argument is that they can become unstable. Of course that depends on the organization minting them and maintaining the servers, not the actual type of URI... (note that even the BCP for usage of XML in IETF specs -- RFC3470 -- mentions that it would be good if the IETF would allow URLs from www.ietf.org for this purpose).
Best regards, Julian
