Re: ISSUE-41/ACTION-97 decentralized-extensibility

Jonas Sicking wrote:
> ...
> I'm not actually a big fan of this proposal. Experience with
> namespaces in XML has showed (at least to me) that namespaces are too
> complex for authors to understand. The most recent example of this was
> the discussion on RDFa+HTML where it was clear that even the experts
> that developed RDFa thought of nodes as receiving their meaning from
> their nodeName rather than from their localName+namespaceURI.
> ...


> Additionally, the SVG working group is hard at work trying to get away
> from exposing their users (SVG authors) to the SVG namespace. I'm
> assuming that this is based on feedback from authors disliking the SVG
> namespace.
> Even the RDFa working group has moved away from the namespacing
> mechanism that XML Namespaces is using. RDFa is based on CURIEs, which
> is a compacted single string, rather than the string-tuple that XML
> Namespaces force upon users.
> ...

Not sure what you're comparing here. As far as I can tell, there is no 
proposal here to use prefixes (a la qname or curie) in content.

> ...

BR, Julian

Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 06:27:18 UTC