W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2002

Re: [namespaceDocument-8] 14 Theses, take 2

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 18 Feb 2002 16:55:32 -0600
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1014072933.19851.87.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 15:50, Tim Bray wrote:
[for reference: http://www.textuality.com/tag/Issue8.html]
[...]
> Finally, Dan Connolly had an issue with Thesis 13 "Namespace
> documents should not favor the needs of any one application or
> application class" which I never got time to understand. Dan?

Whatever you put there is going to favor the needs of some
applications over others. For example,

  12. Namespace documents should be human-readable.

favors the human-browsing application over, say, validation stuff.


TimBL made the point that if the only definitive material
I have about my namespace is, say, an XML Schema, why
not use that as a namespace document? i.e. why use
indirection just for the sake of it?

Thesis 13 (and 14) seems to say that it's necessary to pick
one data format for all namespace documents. Not so;
to each his own. And if my namespace is pretty special-purpose,
what's wrong with using a special-purpose data format
to document it?

I sort fail to see how namespace documents are special
with regard to datat formats. When publishing in
the web, you choose the data format (or formats)
based on their ability to express what you want
to say and on the needs and abilities of your readership.

I'm not interested in debating

  12. Namespace documents should be human-readable.

independent of a principle that

  Documents should be human-readable.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:55:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:04 GMT