> We can't avoid the new namespace thing, but it has so many
> interoperability problems, all we can do is discourage it.
Don't overdramatize it. The only problem that you seem to be concerned with here is how discoverable new extensions are. That can be fixed by adding a registry. No need for new extension mechanisms.
As always, it's only going to be as effective as participation allows it to be.
> Backwards
> compatibility is going to be an issue. Yet another reason not to use
> it. Your proposal has the same problem.
Nope, not a bit of a problem. After all, -local-civic is just describing the mechanism(s) that already exist. Backwards compatibility for a new extension mechanism is going to be worse.
--
A new proposal:
1. Continue using namespaces to extend the XML.
2. Define a way to carry namespace + localName + value in CAtypes.
3. End use of CAtype numbers.
4. Create a registry for the namespaces. FCFS or Expert Review with a minimal template required only. Expert Review would only exist to look for duplicates and to make sure the template is filled out.
That's ONE mechanism. Not two and a half.
It's also far less disruptive to existing implementations.
--Martin
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
