Re: Comments on the architecture doc

At 12:29 AM 04/02/02 -0500, Paul Prescod wrote:
>I wasn't really talking about how this maps into the MIME system at all.
>I was just pointing out that we are going down the wrong path if we try
>to associate machine readable specifications with namespaces and then
>apply them to parts of the document tree dynamically. Namespaces (as
>defined today) do not represent useful "languages" or "document types"
>as Tim and Tim implied.

Namespace don't necessarily represent languages - the URIs normally 
associated with the prefixes "xml:" and "xlink:" are examples.

But namespaces can be used as labels to identify languages: 
examples are XHTML and SVG, and there are more every day.  This is 
the interesting case that we're arguing about.  When we've got a 
language that declares a namespace as part of its definition, a 
namespace on the root element is a plausible signaling mechanism.  
The argument we're having is, what's the relationship between that 
and media types?  -Tim

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 14:25:22 UTC