- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 20:46:24 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: HTMLWG Tracking WG <public-html@w3.org>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Changing the Namespace spec not to require a URI is asking for name
>> collisions. And trying to register a new URI scheme just for naming
>> this is a non-starter; there is already a scheme for that purpose
>> ("URN:").
>
> Hey, if we can use "url:xlink" for this, that's fine too. I don't care
Well, it would require a URN NID, such as "w3c". So you would end up
with something like
urn:w3c:xlink
> what the setup is as long as there is a short prefix that all namespace
> URIs people have to really deal with on the web have in common ("w3c:",
> "urn:", "www:", even "http://w3.org" might be OK, but is starting to
> push it length-wise) and the rest of the namespace URI is just a short
> name for the specification involved ("svg", "xhtml", whatever).
>
> That's assuming that hand-authoring (including of scripts that have to
> use createElementNS and company) is at all a goal, of course. If it's
> not, then there's nothing to discuss here.
I personally believe this shouldn't be a goal, but this is an area where
there are strong beliefs and permathreads all over the place, so it's
probably not constructive to discuss this here (-> URI mailing list :-).
BR, Julian
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2008 19:47:20 UTC