- From: Kurt Cagle <kurt.cagle@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 09:53:00 -0400
- To: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTino1-76PKcPv=qSid2zL8s30zTmGQ@mail.gmail.com>
I had not quite intended to restart the thread here, and my apologies to the chairs. However, I also did wish to clarify a comment: >From one coming from the XML side of the equation, it has been my impression that the XML community does not, in toto, dispute that the current mechanism for disambiguation that namespaces was intended to resolve is perfect - it was a hack compromise intended to complete an action item and move on, and no one at the time understood the degree to which namespaces would become such an integral part of the specification. Just as the HTML community has its legacy baggage to live with that seemed like good ideas at the time but weren't, so too does XML, and namespaces represent a fairly significant sore point. There is no master taxonomy list, only terms that more or less model a given topical domain to some greater or lesser degree, and as there may be different provenances for the authority of those terms (try working with government ontologies some time) there is a need to differentiate and disambiguate common terms with distinct meanings. The prefix mechanism started out in exactly the same way that David Carlisle mentioned, but I believe it can be convincingly argued that in practice prefixes are important because they are aids to notation. XSLT is a good case in point. Assume for the nonce that you DO retain fully resolved namespace URIs, then in practice you get documents that look something like: <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#transform version="2.0"> <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#output method="html"/> <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#template match="/"> <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#apply-templatesselect="*"/> </http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#template> <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#template match="foo"> <http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#html> <http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#apply-templatesselect="*"/> </http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#html> </http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#template> <!-- much, much more like this --> </http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform#transform> Not only does this make a verbose language downright unreadable, but it contains a great deal of redundancy of content that really serves neither machines (except VERY simplistic processors) nor humans. The prefix mechanism that was established isn't perfect, but its intent, even if not reflected in the initial charter, was certainly to reduce that redundancy significantly. My comments concerning prefixes initially was not to state that, preferentially, prefixes should in fact be used for this disambiguation of context independent of URLs. It was rather that if the issue was that naive users did in fact use prefixes without appropriate bound URIs that there should be a mechanism in place that identified that when commonly used prefixes ARE in fact used - such as dc (dublin core), vcard, foaf and so forth, and no namespace URIs are specifically associated with those prefixes, that an assumption is made on the browser (presumably via a lookup table somewhere) that the prefix is indicative of the namespace IN HTML ONLY. It's not foolproof, of course, each browser may decide to include or not include specific namespaces, but if lax human editing conventions are considered a necessary prerequisite to the success of HTML5 (which seems to be a base assumption), then this would seem to be a reasonable fallback position. Please note, I'm not trying to stimulate any further debate here, I just wanted to correct some assumptions on what I wrote earlier to clarify the issue here. I personally think that the decision as it stands is a reasonable one, if I read that decision correctly. Kurt Cagle Invited Expert, XForms Working Group, W3C Managing Editor, XMLToday.org kurt.cagle@gmail.com 443-837-8725 On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 12:43 PM, David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk> wrote: > On 08/04/2011 17:14, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >> ... If someone believe that >> >> *prefixes* are the mechanism by which you disambiguate mixed languages >> (rather than one possible solution to the problem of "using URIs to >> disambiguate mixed languages makes hand-authoring hard"), you'll draw >> incorrect conclusions. >> > > > .... Machines don't have the > > problem that prefixes attempt to solve, so we shouldn't worry about >> them as a class of producers - prefixes, if they are kept, must solely >> be optimized for human hand-authoring, as that was their original (and >> currently unchanged) purpose. >> >> > The claim that prefixes (in XML Names) were introduced to simplify hand > authoring isn't really compatible with the "1. Motivation and Summary" > in the original namespace spec > > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#sec-intro > > which gives as the only reason: > > URI references can contain characters not allowed in names, so cannot be > used directly as namespace prefixes. Therefore, the namespace prefix serves > as a proxy for a URI reference. > > > In other words prefixes were introduced as a way to use URI-qualified names > without changing the (assumed fixed, given from XML/SGML) XML name syntax. > As such it applies equally to machine or hand produced content. > > The syntax rules for HTML (might be) a bit more flexible so perhaps there > would be more flexibility in an html context (but perhaps not, real life > constrains html design perhaps more than SGML heritage constrains XML > design, as you know). So while it may be true that the original motivation > for prefixes doesn't apply to html, that wouldn't be related to machine > generated content. > > > David > > ________________________________________________________________________ > The Numerical Algorithms Group Ltd is a company registered in England > and Wales with company number 1249803. The registered office is: > Wilkinson House, Jordan Hill Road, Oxford OX2 8DR, United Kingdom. > > This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is > powered by MessageLabs. > ________________________________________________________________________ > >
Received on Monday, 11 April 2011 13:53:59 UTC