CDO question regarding "http://schema.microsoft.com" 1

[wlfpackr]

At the risk of being the first person in the history of Tek-Tips to ask a stupid question what is:

"

http://schemas.microsoft.com/cdo/configuration/......"

all about in CDO?

I'm trying to write a vbscript that will gather some information and then email it out to an appropriate administrative group. Is this really going out to the internet for information? For the life of me, I've Googled and Binged and can't find any real information on this.



=================
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that do not.

 

[tsuji]

ms groups certain vocabulary specific to certain application by namespace so that people won't be worried on name collision. The fields of the configuration of cdo object is contained in the namespace with uri:
"[ignore]

http://schemas.microsoft.com/cdo/configuration/

[/ignore]"
It does not imply [1] there is some physical resource in the form of webpage or else [2] users can "download" or reference to or [3] any of the user's application detail would be linked or sent to the uri (universal resource indicator). With a namespace or constant containing the namespace prefix in the format of a uri, the chances of a name collision are theoretically avoided - that is the main reason of using it in this area. Hence, the field with local name, say, smtpserver, would have the fully qualified name as
[tt] "[ignore]

http://schemas.microsoft.com/cdo/configuration/smtpserver

[/ignore]"[/tt]
I hope the above succeeds in taking away your worries of privacy, at least.

As to a possible question for the curious: why ms uses the kind of consideration on cdo but not the other such as, I don't know, adodb command object for instance, I think it is influenced by a current of thinking of the moment or some ambition at the time of its inception to make the approach generally accepted as a standard...

ref for further reading

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms527274(EXCHG.10).aspx

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms526318(v=EXCHG.10).aspx

 

[strongm]

>but not the other such as, I don't know, adodb command

They do use it in a number of other areas, eg:

MAPI -

http://schemas.microsoft.com/mapi/

CRM -

http://schemas.microsoft.c?om/crm/

.NET -

http://schemas.microsoft.com/.NetConfiguration/

SQL Server -

http://schemas.microsoft.com/sqlserver/

Sharepoint -

http://schemas.microso?ft.com/sharepoint/

WinFX -

http://schemas.microso?ft.com/winfx/

etc., etc.

>or some ambition at the time of its inception to make the approach generally accepted as a standard...

XML schemas and XML namespaces, perhaps ...

 

[HughLerwill]

So are they effectively string constants or what?

 

[tsuji]

Yeah, I know, but it is still not other.

 

[tsuji]

>XML schemas and XML namespaces, perhaps ...
What do you mean by that addition in relation to my answer?

 

[tsuji]

amendment
uri should be read as acronym of universal resource identifier.

 

[strongm]

I was commenting on your view that it might be "some ambition at the time of its inception to make the approach generally accepted as a standard". It was and is a standard. No ambition necessary.

 

[tsuji]

>It was and is standard.
You can as well invent something and become "standard" in your sense. That is how xml is extensible. Then one's "standard" is a "standard". It is valid only in that sense.