- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:13:57 -0800
- To: Miles Sabin <miles@milessabin.com>, WWW-Tag <www-tag@w3.org>
Miles Sabin wrote: > > > >Every particular namespace is "for" something in particular. XHTML is > >for hypertext, MathML for mathematics, SVG for scalable graphics, RDF > >for resource descriptions, etc. > > > That's not what it says in the Namespace REC. The point of best practice documentation is to go beyond what the RECs say. If you can't find an example of a namespace lacking in semantics, then it seems true of real world usage, no matter what the REC says. > > In any case, what you really want here is documentation of the XHTML, > MathML, SVG etc. document types. That documentation already has URIs > ... which aren't the same as their respective namespace identifiers. > If you follow these URIs, you _will_ find very relevant documentation: http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML/ http://www.w3.org/2000/svg http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml RDF, on the other hand, has machine-readable data rather than documentation: http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns I am in favour of Tim Bray's proposal to establish a convention of providing both. I have not yet seen a namespace that would not benefit from human readable documentation as a referent. But I am willing to allow for the existence of such a namespace by making the principle a SHOULD rather than a MUST. Paul Prescod
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 15:14:40 UTC