- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 21:38:25 -0500
- To: Frank Boumphrey <bckman@ix.netcom.com>
- CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[what does this have to do with prefix-confusion?] Frank Boumphrey wrote: > > > If we change the meaning of RDF, then we change the namespace. I > don't think > > we'll need anything more. > > If W3C history is a guide, this is not really an option. Sure it is. > It was made quite clear to us on the XHTML WG that a namespace is a > namespace is a namespace! No, I think what the community said was that there's just one XHTML language; i.e. the XHTML namespace is the XHTML namespace is the XHTML namespace. > e.g. frames, strict and loose XHTML all have the same namespace. That doesn't necessarily carry over to RDF. It certainly doesn't carry over to XSLT, where there are at least two extant dialects with different namespace names (one from Microsoft, another from W3C) nor for XML Schema, where there are several dialects from W3C with different namespace names. > No there is XML 1.0, and the upcoming XML 1.1, and we need to do the > same thing. But XML syntax isn't built using namespaces, so it can't use namespaces as a versioning mechanism. > versioning, although mundane _is_important. Sure it is! It's one of the main motivations for namespaces. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 30 May 2001 22:38:31 UTC