Re: XML namespaces and RDF

Dan Brickley wrote:
> Dan Brickley wrote:
>> I'm afraid you're mistaken; we were amongst its first customers. This 
>> is documented  even from the days before XML itself was finalised 
>> (although I've just failed to find the relevant links). There was in 
>> fact a big fuss about this about ten years ago, within W3C: XML didn't 
>> get frozen before it was clear that the basics were in place to build 
>> a namespaces mechanism (the full spec for which came later), for specs 
>> such as RDF to build upon.
> 

...
[1]
> which cites http://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/98JanAC/xml-req.html

Fascinating.

But the PR that [1] argues against, went on to become the XML Rec, and 
according to the many signatories of [1], the extensibility mechanisms 
were inadequate, and XML did, in fact, get frozen.

I can believe a version of the past in which the XML 1.1 mentioned in 
that doc morphed into XML Namespaces, ... but it doesn't achieve the 
extensibility requirements set out in [1].

Jeremy


[1]
http://www.w3.org/Member/Meeting/98JanAC/xml-req.html
(member only)