RE: Hypermedia - Why

You can be sure I'll let you know!  :-) 

But in the meantime, we should proceed without any assumptions. 

Do you think the "why" is laid out well enough?  

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Lee [mailto:David.Lee@marklogic.com] 
> Sent: July 26, 2012 08:44
> To: Rushforth, Peter; David Carlisle
> Cc: public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Hypermedia - Why
> 
> Call me back when you get an answer.
> 
> Until then, we can proceed without worrying what namespace 
> (if any) this work ends up  in.
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------
> David Lee
> Lead Engineer
> MarkLogic Corporation
> dlee@marklogic.com
> Phone: +1 650-287-2531
> Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
> www.marklogic.com
> 
> This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are 
> confidential. The information is intended solely for the use 
> of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any review, 
> disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this e-mail 
> communication by others is strictly prohibited. If you are 
> not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by 
> returning this message to the sender and delete all copies. 
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rushforth, Peter [mailto:Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 8:39 AM
> > To: David Lee; David Carlisle
> > Cc: public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Hypermedia - Why
> > 
> > To the spokespeople of the w3c: Why not the xml: namespace ?  You 
> > defined the architecture of the web, did you not?  Are the two 
> > incompatible in some way?
> > 
> > Not willing to take it off the table until we hear "why" :-).
> > 
> > Peter
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Lee [mailto:David.Lee@marklogic.com]
> > > Sent: July 26, 2012 08:36
> > > To: Rushforth, Peter; David Carlisle
> > > Cc: public-xmlhypermedia@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: Hypermedia - Why
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > As to "why the xml namespace" aspect, I think it is
> > > important to hand
> > > > developers the tools for the job.  Namespaces are not part
> > > of XML, and
> > > > indeed not everyone wants to use them, and I think the goal
> > > of XML is
> > > > to be successful on the internet, namespaces or not.
> > > > To do that, I believe a language needs to have elements
> > > which reflect
> > > > the environment of deployment.
> > >
> > > I suggest pragmatically taking this goal of the table for 
> the simple 
> > > fact that it is not going to happen.
> > > W3C "owns" the "xml:" prefix. (and namespace).   They have
> > > made it perfectly clear the scope of things they are 
> willing to add, 
> > > and that scope is prety much zero right now.
> > > This is not a fight we will win, regardless of merit.  I 
> bet you a 
> > > 100 year old scotch on that.
> > >
> > > So I suggest, again pragmatically, that if this effort has
> > > *any* chance of adoption that it be implemented either with no 
> > > namespace attributes or with a distinct non-xml: namespace
> > > or both	.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ---------------
> > > David Lee
> > > Lead Engineer
> > > MarkLogic Corporation
> > > dlee@marklogic.com
> > > Phone: +1 650-287-2531
> > > Cell:  +1 812-630-7622
> > > www.marklogic.com
> > >
> > > This e-mail and any accompanying attachments are 
> confidential. The 
> > > information is intended solely for the use of the 
> individual to whom 
> > > it is addressed. Any review, disclosure, copying, 
> distribution, or 
> > > use of this e-mail communication by others is strictly 
> prohibited. 
> > > If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us 
> immediately 
> > > by returning this message to the sender and delete all copies.
> > > Thank you for your cooperation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2012 12:48:13 UTC