RE: The Web as an Application

David,

> I assert:
> This working group is not going to be able to add anything to 
> the xml: namespace.
> In order to do that we would need to be part of the XML 
> working group.  The XML spec clearly states that xml* 
> attributes, elements, and anything in the xml: namespace are 
> their domain.  Being part of W3C I dont think we can pull 
> that rug from them.

Certainly.  I would hope they would be able to 'listen to reason',
or at least a community POV without prejudice.

Also, I note there are at least two members if not more of the
XML WG listening in on this group, so they can add their opinions easily.

> 
> If we can't agree on this we can take it "upstairs" for 
> verification ... but I am fairly confident of this fact.

Not prejudging what the conclusions of the XML WG might be, I would
still like to lay out the arguments for and against in a reasonably coherent
manner.  That's what I hope the wiki is for.  

> 
> if we can agree then lets proceed with the assumption that 
> this WG will propose a specification that does not include 
> changing the XML specification, lets proceed on that.

I can't proceed on that assumption, because I think a technically
valid and backwards-compatible solution does involve changing the
XML namespace.  XLink already does exist, so there's no need for
yet another spec that doesn't get used.

I would put it another way.  If this group can put forward an XML application
vocabulary for hypermedia that fulfills requirements (tbd - discussion
obviously needed) then we should go for it.

> If we can agree, but we dont like it then the next step is to 
> request to be members of the XML WG and take the issue up with them.

I think they've already spoken to that issue:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2012May/0027.html

So I'm not optimistic either, but it would be ideal to lay out
a good proposed spec and they can decide on the merits anyway.

Peter

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2013 21:34:46 UTC