W dniu 2010-12-04 18:06, Freek Dijkstra pisze:
romradz@man.poznan.pl wrote:
during the OGF30 it was said that the namespace for attributes is not a good idea (may only complicate things). It's just unusual for regular XML (it is common for RDF). My opinion is that if we can avoid it, that's nice to have (to ease the learning curve for people who never saw it before), but it's not very important (I presume all XML libraries support it).
Let's assume we had a separate namespace for at least 2 attributes (type, item) to deal with collections like list, map and set.
Examples:
<x collection:type="list" xmlns:collection="http://ggf.org/ns/collections"> <y collection:item="1">value</y> <y collection:item="2">value</y> <y collection:item="3">value</y> </x> [...]
Collection namespace and its attributes would not be a part of NML, just a definition which could be used by NML and other standards (for example, NMC). Only when collection structures are needed. This way NML would not have to define ordering (format issue) but focus on topology elements and their relations. This has my personal preference.
This is in fact basically the same question as this one ("where to put XML attributes that are not specific to NML):
Question 2b. What attribute to use for references in XML? a) id and idref in NM-WG namespace b) id and idref in NML base namespace c) id and idref in NML Ethernet namespace d) id and idref in new (OGF) namespace (created for just these attribs) e) about and resource in RDF namespace (see topic "Identifier" previous month).
Your solution is solution d.
My proposal is for ordering not referencing. Here I would vote for 'b' or 'a' (prefer b). Jason., why see 'c' (it doesn't seem to be a general solution; only for Ethernet?)? One more comment about adding a separate namespace for ordered list. NML schema does not have to include definitions of additional elements for that ('next' or something like that). If a xml library supports ordering then an attribute of collection namespace could be ignored. Clean and simple solution (and independent of types of ordered elements). Can we make a final decision what is going to be used for ordered list? Freek, what do you think to make a deadline for it? regards. Roman
However, there is no consensus on this topic yet. Please correct me, but I thought the opinions expressed were:
Freek: a, d, e Jeroen: b Jason: c My current stance is that whoever has the time/effort to create the schema gets to decide :)
Regards, Freek