W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org > August 2012

RE: use cases

From: Rushforth, Peter <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:47:38 +0000
To: "public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org" <public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org>
CC: David Lee <David.Lee@marklogic.com>
Message-ID: <1CD55F04538DEA4F85F3ADF7745464AF1AE31929@S-BSC-MBX4.nrn.nrcan.gc.ca>

> >I would go first with using namespaces like most other 
> add-in vocabularies with XML do.
> I agree that use case needs to be separately addressed, but 
> the no-namespace use case is important and so is called out 
> by a separately layered-on use case.  Maybe the layering is 
> not clear enough?  ie. the auto-namespaces use case could be 
> achieved with a regular namespace-based set of hypermedia 
> vowels, but to unlock the full benefit of hypermedia for the 
> general use case of xml, they would have to be in the xml namespace.

OK, I have completely separated the use case drawing on automatic namespaces
only to use an http://example.com -based namespace.


I will work on the NeoXML use case example to clarify it a bit more.  If anyone
has any comments or issues, let me know.  Hopefully, it will reflect what this
community thinks.

Also, if anyone has any other use cases, especially which highlight the importance of any one or more
of the vowels or combination thereof, please bring it up on the list and we can potentially capture on the wiki.

Particular outliers right now are @hreflang, @method, @tref.

WRT @rel, I am thinking of that Achilles Heel of XML, the size of the document model post-parsing, as a use case justification for @rel="next".  What does the group think?

Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 17:48:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:44:53 UTC