Bjoern's point seems reasonably well made.
http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results
seems more consistent with precedent and hence
easier for XSLT/javascript programmers to deal with.
Dave, what do you think?
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Forwarded message 1
* Dan Connolly wrote:
>> If the IRI above is intended to be the namespace name
>> for use in the Candidate Recommendation of the format, please change
>> it to something sensible;
>
>In what way is it not sensible?
Well, it's inconsistent with
>> common W3C namespace names are
>>
>> * http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
>> * http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink
>> * http://www.w3.org/2000/svg
>> * http://www.w3.org/2001/vxml
>> * http://www.w3.org/2001/xml-events
>> * http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms
>> * http://www.w3.org/2004/xbl
>> * ...
common W3C practise and depends on authors, developers (think XSLT
authors or JavaScript developers processing AJAX Sparql results)
doing more work (remember more complicated names, typing more), I
don't think any harm would be done if it is changed to
http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql
http://www.w3.org/2005/sparql-results
or something along those lines.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/