Re: Activity Streams URI Namespace

hello james.

maybe this is a stupid question, but:

On 2014-10-23, 8:46 , James M Snell wrote:
> Then for any legacy AS1 terms, we would either keep using
> (to highlight the fact that these older
> terms are not officially endorsed/specified by the Working Group) or do:
> (to highlight the year that
> Activity Streams 1.0 was published)

why would the actual old terms have a namespace at all? aren't they 
defined to be plain string literals and thus simply need to be listed 
somewhere as strings that have to be matched? where would that "legacy 
namespace URI" even come into play?

or is the model that in AS2 the legacy terms would indeed be used in a 
qualified way? i suspect that's the case, but in that case, they 
wouldn't actually be the legacy terms anymore, because these are defined 
to be unqualified, right?

they would be newly defined qualified terms, simply brought in from AS1. 
because of that i think it would make sense to use a "new namespace" 
(i.e., a w3c one), because the actual old terms really don't have one. 
using would mislead developers to think 
that the terms as they are used in AS1 are actually using this namespace.

thanks and cheers,


erik wilde |  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | |

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2014 16:00:37 UTC