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!
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 23:26:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:30 UTC