- From: Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake@acm.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:03:20 -0500
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: WWW DOM <www-dom@w3.org>
Philippe Le Hegaret writes: > I would have preferred personally to see URIs > (http://www.w3.org/2002/validate-if-schema) rather ad-hoc prefixes > (w3.org.validate-if-schema) but, for usability reasons (avoiding typos), > the WG decided to stick with validate-if-schema. The simple fact that I'd be happy with URIs as well. The real point is to avoid name clashes between vendor extensions and W3C-ordained options. > I tried to look back in our archives to find the exact reason but didn't > find it. As far as I remember, we decided that namespaces will not be > optional for the DOM Level 3 Load and Save and won't provide a way to > not have namespaces in LS. Nowadays, all XML applications provided > within the W3C (and a lot outside the W3C) do have namespaces support. > So we classified XML applications without namespaces in our design > failure category. I understand that this might be viewed as an arbitrary > choice but it is also clear in our mind that the DOM 3 LS is only *a* > solution to load a DOM tree and not *the* solution, especially when we > don't resolve at all the problems related with the XML processing model. This seems *incredibly* arbitrary. I can tell you now what my first extension will be. I'm just not sure what to call it. Even if the spec makes a turn-off-namespaces option default to false (namespaces enabled) and make support for namespace-less processing optional, I think a lot of implementations will have a namespace-less mode, and it would be very helpful if there was exactly one name for that. > Thanks for the reminder. I checked our latest internal version and we > did address the issue (and rearranged a little the table of contents at > the time). We'll probably published a draft in March after addressing > the rest of your issues next week. I look forward to the next draft. I hope to have time next week to write up some additional comments that I think should be addressed before the spec is considered "implementable". Thanks for taking time to address my concerns. -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at acm.org> PythonLabs at Zope Corporation
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 22:05:03 UTC