----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Reschke" <julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de>
To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer(_at_)nic(_dot_)fr>
Cc: "Tony Finch" <dot(_at_)dotat(_dot_)at>; <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: draft-duerst-iana-namespace-00.txt
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
...
Yes. I suggest (continuing the first paragraph of section 7):
On the client side, implementors MUST use the existing solutions to
limit the rate of access to the origin server. They include:
* ability to use HTTP caching ([RFC 2616], section 13)
* local storage of data, together with HTTP headers like
If-Modified-Since ([RFC 2616], section 14.25)
* XML catalogs ([OASIS 2001])
...
Hm, we are talking about XML namespace names, not DTD URIs.
XML processors are not supposed to resolve them, so it seems strange to
insert requirements for clients that do so.
Welcome as this is, why is this I-D limited to XML namespace names? What about
XML Schema names?
And is this not an update to RFC3688?
Tom Petch
BR, Julian
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf