This specification defines a Uniform Resource Name namespace for XML namespace-qualified names, QNames. As long as the URN is encoded in the same character set as the document containing the original QName, the Qname URN provides enough information to maintain the semantics, and optionally the exact syntax, of the original name.
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress”.
The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.
The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.
This Internet-Draft will expire on June 18, 2010.
Copyright © 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the BSD License.
This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process. Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other than English.
Please send comments to the xml-dev mailing list (<http://www.xml.org/xml-dev/>).
XML versions, latest edits and the issues list for this document are available from <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/#draft-rsalz-qname-urn>.
|I contacts (type: edit, status: open)|
|email@example.com||2009-12-11||Update author information.|
|I mailing-list (type: edit, status: open)|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||2009-12-12||In the boilerplate, state where this Internet Draft should be discussed. Proposal: xml-dev.|
|I curie (type: edit, status: open)|
|email@example.com||2009-12-12||Maybe we should clarify the relation with CURIEs (which can be confused with QNames)?|
|I qname-vs-expname (type: edit, status: open)|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||2009-12-12||There's a risk that we confuse people by claiming this is about QNames. What we map to URNs is the triple (namespace-name, local-name, prefix), where the prefix is optional. The tuple (namespace-name, local-name) is the *expanded name*, not the QName. Options: (1) just clarify the prose, (2) rename the URN scheme (is it in use already?) to something like "xmlname".|
|I i18n (type: change, status: open)|
|email@example.com||2009-12-11||Need to state how non-ASCII characters are mapped to the URN.|
This specification defines a Uniform Resource Name namespace for XML namespace-qualified names, QNames. As long as the URN is encoded in the same character set as the document containing the original QName, the Qname URN provides enough information to maintain the semantics, and optionally the exact syntax, of the original name.¶
There are a variety of situations when a QName may need to be mapped to a URI. For example, when exchanging (or referencing) an identifier for an XML element contained within a document, and the medium of exchange prefers URIs to QNames, such as an XML Schema anyURI data type. Another scenario is for comparing the identifiers, which can be simpler by comparing just a string without having to also compare the context setting XML namespace attribute that may be declared arbitrarily earlier in the document.¶
The XML Namespaces specification [XMLNS] does not provide a canonical mapping between QNames and URIs. Any XML specification that wants to enable identifier exchanges must define a language specific QName to URI mapping. There have emerged a variety of different algorithms and solutions for the mapping. To date, there have been no standardized algorithms available that they can re-use, which has increased their efforts. A standardized mapping, such as this, should provide increased productivity.¶
Almost all of the algorithms for Qname to URI mappings are based upon concatenation of the URI and the name with variations based upon prefix inclusion, namespace name and name separator, etc. These are typically problematic because it is difficult to recover the QName from the URI as the namespace name and name separator may have already been used in the namespace name. Having the namespace name at the end of the identifier string avoids these and other problems.¶
Namespace ID: ¶
|I reg-info (type: edit, status: open)|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||2009-12-11||Update registration info.|
Registration Information: ¶
|I registrant (type: edit, status: open)|
|email@example.com||2009-12-11||Update registrant info.|
Declared registrant of the namespace: ¶
Declaration of syntactic structure: ¶
|I any-uri (type: change, status: open)|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||2009-12-12||Need a grammar for "any valid URI". Do we follow stricly XMLNS, which would make it a "URI reference" as per RFC 3986, or do we tolerate junk and/or IRIs (no offense). Also, we need to state that this part of the URN will be empty for elements that are in no namespace (right?).|
urn:qname:foo:OK:http://example.com/ws/foo.xsd urn:qname::OK:http://example.com/ws/foo.xsd urn:qname:*:Reject:http://w3.org/2002/xkms#The first correspond to the following element content QNames (the element name is not significant):
|I examples (type: change, status: open)|
|email@example.com||2009-12-11||Having just examples of QNames in element content might be confusing to people not familiar with that use case; we also should have at least one example for an XML element name, and for a QName in content. (potentially also move the examples out of the registration template?)|
<foo xmlns:foo="http://example.com/ws/foo.xsd">foo:OK</foo> <foo xmlns="http://example.com/ws/foo.xsd">foo:OK</foo>The third example would match both of the others, as well as an inifinite number of QNames, since the namespace prefix is explicitly marked as "don't-care."
Identifier uniqueness considerations: ¶
Identifier persistence considerations: ¶
Process of identifier assignment: ¶
Process for identifier resolution: ¶
Rules for Lexical Equivalence: ¶
Conformance with URN Syntax: ¶
Validation mechanism: ¶
|I xml11 (type: change, status: open)|
|firstname.lastname@example.org||2009-12-11||Consider removing any material related to XML 1.1.|
In the 1.1 Namespace specification, namespace URI's (universal resource identifiers; see ...xref...) become IRI's (internationalized resource identifiers, see ...xref...). Although currently an Internet-Draft, and therefore not feasible to use as a normative reference here, it is expected that the final RFC will continue to define a way to map IRI's to URI's. To apply this specification to IRI's, then, first apply that mapping before using the syntax here.¶
QName URN's provide a way to transcribe XML QName's into and out of URN syntax. Any security considerations are inherited from the original QName.¶