- From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
- Date: 19 Feb 2002 00:31:26 -0500
- To: TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
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 UTC