- From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:08:16 -0400
- To: Zoltan Hawryluk <zoltan@netcom.ca>, "'www-html@w3.org'" <www-html@w3.org>
At 09:53 AM 9/3/99 -0400, Zoltan Hawryluk wrote: >Ann Navarro said: > >> There is currently some controversy around the XHTML PR, but it's not >> anything to do with case (it's about the choice of three >> namespaces). > > >wow. out of curiousity, what's the controversy? i am currently >experimenting with XHTML and just wanted to know what issues there are. Without scaring anyone who doesn't really care about these things :) -- The issue is, in significant part, whether a namespace can have a one to one mapping, or even a one to many mapping, to a schema, DTD, or other defining mechanism, through the namespace URI. The XML Namespaces rec states that "it is not a goal" that such mapping be possible. It does not, however, say it must not occur (spec language for "you can't do that!"). Current XML Schema working drafts, do indeed include language that provides for such mapping. It is a hotly debated point in that Working Group right now. That, combined with our group's general design philosophy, lead to the choice of 3 namespaces, one for each "flavor" of XHTML (which are Strict, Transitional, and Frameset , as were in HTML 4.0). At one point, we were argued back to a single XHTML namespace, but we reversed ourselves on that decision as the document went to PR. FTR: Tim Berners-Lee himself is a staunch supporter of the ability to map namespaces to schemas. Even though the idea isn't universally popular, it is highly practical, which should win-out in the end. Ann --- Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials Coming in September --- Mastering XML Founder, WebGeek Communications http://www.webgeek.com Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org Director, HWG Online Education http://www.hwg.org/services/classes
Received on Friday, 3 September 1999 10:11:01 UTC