W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 1999

RE: CSS Namespaces: Need multiple namespaces!

From: Jelks Cabaniss <jelks@jelks.nu>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 05:03:47 -0400
To: "Peter Linss" <peterl@netscape.com>, "www-style" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NBBBICMNIPCICMKJECCBCEDECPAA.jelks@jelks.nu>
Peter Linss wrote:

> The real issue here is how namespaces are really going to
> be used in the real world. My takeaway from reading the
> Namespace Rec is that a namespace is *just a name*, the
> URL doesn't actually point to anything and shouldn't be
> overloaded to point to a schema or DTD or anything (except
> perhaps someday some information about the *namespace* not
> the document where it is used).

That was *last* month. :)  But then you have this (TimBL):

	http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail-archive/xml-dev/xml-dev-Sep-1999/1251.html

> With that in mind, I didn't see the need or desire for using multiple 
> namespaces for XHTML as had been proposed and hotly debated since.

> If you presume that languages identified by namespace are going
> to have one and only one namespace for all schemas/DTD and all
> versions (as I believe the namespace was meant to be used), then
> you don't really need this mechanism in CSS. I was waiting to see
> what precedent XHTML sets before adding this feature to CSS. If
> they go the multi namespace route then I believe others will
> follow and CSS really needs this. If they set a stake in the
> ground and say "namespaces don't have versions or flavors", then
> having this feature in CSS may only lead to more confusion in the
> namespace arena. Which is something I'd like to avoid.

For another angle, see (ouch):

	http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail-archive/xml-dev/xml-dev-Sep-1999/1267.html

/Jelks
Received on Thursday, 30 September 1999 05:05:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:00 GMT