- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 18 Feb 2002 16:55:32 -0600
- To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- Cc: TAG <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 15:50, Tim Bray wrote: [for reference: http://www.textuality.com/tag/Issue8.html] [...] > Finally, Dan Connolly had an issue with Thesis 13 "Namespace > documents should not favor the needs of any one application or > application class" which I never got time to understand. Dan? Whatever you put there is going to favor the needs of some applications over others. For example, 12. Namespace documents should be human-readable. favors the human-browsing application over, say, validation stuff. TimBL made the point that if the only definitive material I have about my namespace is, say, an XML Schema, why not use that as a namespace document? i.e. why use indirection just for the sake of it? Thesis 13 (and 14) seems to say that it's necessary to pick one data format for all namespace documents. Not so; to each his own. And if my namespace is pretty special-purpose, what's wrong with using a special-purpose data format to document it? I sort fail to see how namespace documents are special with regard to datat formats. When publishing in the web, you choose the data format (or formats) based on their ability to express what you want to say and on the needs and abilities of your readership. I'm not interested in debating 12. Namespace documents should be human-readable. independent of a principle that Documents should be human-readable. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 17:55:00 UTC