----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx> Cc: "Tony Finch" <dot@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ IETF mailing list IETF@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf