Re: Reasons to use namespaces

> When one does a "GET", or equivalent operation, on the resource URI, 
> indicating what are acceptable versions of the resource;  e.g.
>     Accept: text/html   

yes but if you have a few dozen schema all of the same mime type
what then?


> But if you want to do more --have some globally accessible meaning 
> associated with use of the namespace-- then the choice of your home page 
> URI is inappropriate.

I am not sure why it os appropriate I can assign meaning to elements
that are in the namespace of that name without making any assertions
about the html page at that URI can't I?

I don't actually see it is any different from the HTML pages sat at
the MathML or XHTML namespace URIs. Thos HTML pages are mildly more
related to the namespaces than my home page, but is stretching things
to claim that they in anyway represent the namespace.

> Having said that, I find myself wondering if "fixing" the namespace REC is 
> the best way forward.  If there is a constituency for whom it serves a 
> useful purpose, why change? 
quite.
>  Maybe, a new document that explicitly 
> addresses some higher goals and sets out additional constraints on 
> namespace usage that must be observed to address those goals might be a 
> more productive approach?

Sounds resonable. Any system that is expecting to dereference
information (from the namespace name or anything else) is of necessity
going to have to greatly constrain namespace use to restrict the types
of URI used, and the types of document taht are returned when the URI
are dereferenced.

David

Received on Thursday, 8 June 2000 13:00:56 UTC