Re: Namespaces, the universe, and everything

At 15:01 19/6/97 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:

>And let's hear why having
>all meta-data in XML is a wonderful idea.

Not only that, but why must the metadata be in a single file? If we had
subdocs I would suggest that there is a strong case for metadata being
incorporated as subdocument entities - this is really what people need: a
means of associating structured metadata with a file which does not conform
to the same structure as the data in the file.

Why invent a convoluted and restricted mechanism for doing something which
is easy to do in SGML already?

(DSIGS that need checksums might be a problem here though!)

>I'm not opposed to the idea of namespaces, but the last minute rush is very
>worrisome, and the reasons behind that rush are _not_ being clearly
>presented to this group -- nor are the requirements and technical tradeoffs
>being presented.

Tim says the deadline is Q4 of 1997: this makes much more sense than July 1st.

>Are the requirements (singly or in combination):
>
>  1. attachment of abstract semantics
>  2. unquification of names
>  3. attachment of unique names to short names in an instance
>  4. parsability by a one-pass parser
>  5. generatability on the fly with no discontinuous dependencies that
>would require buffering attlist declarations and the instance in progress
>while you do generation.
>  6. Conformance to notational prejudices of the engineers involved.
>  7. ??? ...

7. Ability to build compound documents (with and without validation)

----
Martin Bryan, 29 Oldbury Orchard, Churchdown, Glos. GL3 2PU, UK 
Phone/Fax: +44 1452 714029  E-mail: mtbryan@sgml.u-net.com 
For details about The SGML Centre contact http://www.sgml.u-net.com/
For details about the Open Information Interchange initiative contact
http://www.echo.lu/oii/home.html

Received on Friday, 20 June 1997 04:40:33 UTC