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

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

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: 19 Feb 2002 00:31:26 -0500
To: TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1014096687.931.322.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 17:55, Dan Connolly wrote:
> 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.

That may well be why point 12 precedes point 13.  Reading 12 as coming
prior to 13 rather than a logical build-up to 13 makes it clear that
human readers are valued more highly than automated processing, though
computer processing is given space in 13.

> 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?

Preserving diversity at that stage in processing seems like a wise idea
to me.  Indirection preserves choice by readers.  Recommending that as
best practice to authors seems to be more than "indirection just for the
sake of it".

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 23:26:51 GMT

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