- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:42:48 +0200
- To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>, <public-appformats-request@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
On Tuesday, August 28, 2007, 6:23:01 PM, Jon wrote: JF> In answer to your question about whether anyone feels strongly JF> about the namespace issue, I feel strongly that any new grammar JF> defined by W3C should sit on top of a foundation of XML namespaces JF> and would recommend to my A/C rep to vote "no" against any JF> specifications that defined a new language that did not do so. I agree with Jon. Furthermore, I note that the TAG does too - see WebArch: Good practice: Namespace adoption A specification that establishes an XML vocabulary SHOULD place all element names and global attribute names in a namespace. http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#xml-namespaces JF> To me, it is glaringly obvious that a standards organization JF> should leverage whatever tools are available to ensure that the JF> technologies it defines are robust and extensible. In the realm of JF> angle-bracket markup languages, the relevant tools are XML JF> namespaces along with a proper schema definition using XML Schema JF> or RelaxNG. I agree that this (should be) obvious. Please put the widget xml in a namespace. A RelaxNG grammar for it would also be highly desirable. -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2007 17:43:02 UTC