- From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:05:13 +0100
- To: "MWI BPWG Public" <public-bpwg@w3.org>
The DDWG used the org.w3c.ddr.* namespace for the DDR Simple API because this was an interface definition originating with a W3C group. Implementations by members, and the public at large, are expected to be in their own namespaces. I expect that a similar approach would be used in the MobileOK checker, wherein any common interfaces and any direct implementations originating with the W3C would have the org.w3c.* namespace, and no further. It is not a reflection upon the quality or credibility of a contribution that it would be refused permission to be in the org.w3c.* namespace (though I think technically no-one can prevent such usage since ownership of software namespaces has never been established in law). It is, as Alan suggests, merely a matter of clarity and management. If the W3C were to commission some examples to be developed, then one could argue that the example should belong to the org.w3c.* namespace. However, it would be a better example to developers if a contributor were to offer code in a completely different namespace, thereby encouraging other developers to follow suit. Lead by example... ---Rotan. -----Original Message----- From: public-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-bpwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Chuter Sent: 02 June 2009 10:02 To: MWI BPWG Public Subject: Package namespace for checker extensions Miguel Garcia wrote: > PD: No objections to the suggested namespace > (org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.ext.*) for non-mobileOK extensions of the > Checker Suggested in [1]. Is it a good idea to have third parties (even if there are WG members involved) creating packages in the org.w3 namespace? As the checker is extensible anyone can create extensions, but it would be confusing and unmanageable if they were to all to start creating org.w3.* packages, potentially overlapping each other. In this case the proposal is to include the extension in the source tree but this won't always be the case. I suggest that it would be better for each developer to use their own namespace. regards, Alan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2009May/0000.html -- Alan Chuter Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad Consultor Technosite - Grupo Fundosa Fundación ONCE Tfno.: 91 121 03 30 Fax: 91 375 70 51 achuter@technosite.es http://www.technosite.es
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:05:55 UTC