W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2001

Re: Finalised Glossary Definitions

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001 15:52:58 +0100
Message-ID: <3AB8C04A.36E10543@crf.canon.fr>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
CC: frystyk@microsoft.com, "'Williams Stuart'" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Thanks for your answer.

Mark Nottingham wrote:

> To me, the namespace is a natural way to do this; it identifies the
> Module (current definition) whose functionality is desired, and
> installed handlers on the node will identify which functionalities
> they implement, by the same namespace. I don't think this is unduly
> overloading it; it's being used as an identifier for the semantics of
> the tags it describes.

I think I'd like to know what the XML Namespace people think of the issue. Anyone
out there?

> Using a separate identifier doesn't really add anything, unless it's
> felt that there is an additional, orthoganal way needed to describe
> the desired handler. It bloats the message, and increases the amount
> of administrative details associated with messages (a namespace URI
> and a module-functionality URI).

Remember we are using XML, so we are not too concerned by the size of messages
anyway!  :)

> Do we have any use cases (documented or not) where handlers (not
> processors) need to be targetted in this manner?

I'd be tempted to turn the question round: do we have any use case where
processors (not handlers) should be targetted, considering that handlers will do
the work anyway? (Am I answering a different question?)


Received on Wednesday, 21 March 2001 09:54:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC