On 17 Feb 2009, at 10:31, Art Botterell wrote:
> I believe our thinking was that since messages that conform to the
> Profile are, perforce, valid instances of a CAP 1.1 message, having
> a different namespace wasn't mandatory. And if we give them a
> different namespace it will break interoperability with non-IPAWS
> transports.
If I see this as the XML Namespace in a CAP instance:
<urn:oasis:names:tc:emergency:cap:1.1>
How do I know this is Profile X?
(Not trying to be difficult, but I think a Profile needs to *extend*
an existing Namespace, and I am not sure this is consistent with OASIS
naming policy [1]).
Cheers... Renato Iannella
NICTA
[1] <http://docs.oasis-open.org/specGuidelines/namingGuidelines/resourceNamingCommentaryV08.html#NamespaceDesign
>
