From: Tim Bray <tb...@textuality.com> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 11:12 AM To: Gould, James <jgo...@verisign.com> Cc: m...@lowentropy.net; regext@ietf.org; drafts-expert-review-comm...@iana.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] [regext] Re: [IANA #1410981] expert review for draft-ietf-regext-epp-eai (xml-registry) Caution: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On Jan 17, 2025 at 6:22:32 AM, "Gould, James" <jgo...@verisign.com<mailto:jgo...@verisign.com>> wrote: Tim, Thank you for the review. In your note, is the concern that the namespace prefix is being used for the element name (e.g., “addlEmail”)? I found similar definitions in the following EPP RFCs, which are broadly implemented: • EPP RFC 5730 with xmlns:epp="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0" and <element name="epp" type="epp:eppType"/>. No, the element name is fine, it’s the value of the “type” attribute that is troublesome. The namespace prefix “epp" is really only designed to prefix element & attribute names, not to be used inside the element content or the attribute value. There aren’t any standards (afaik) that require a standard off-the-shelf XML processor to make those prefix/URI mappings available. For example, would you expect this to work? <something xmlns:foo="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:epp-1.0”><element name="epp" type=“foo:eppType”/> I mean, it’s probably OK, enough people do this that most XML software can handle it. It’s just that as the designated XML pedant, I feel I should point out departures from the letter of the standard. [SAH] Tim, do you have a suggested solution? Would ‘type="emailType"’ work? Sorry, I don’t have a parser handy to check. Scott
_______________________________________________ regext mailing list -- regext@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to regext-le...@ietf.org
