RE: Namespaces are dead.


Why ought namespaces be dead? Is Biztalk that important? Just don't use
Biztalk or the XML Data namespace if you don't want it, this is a free WWW!

> Both BizTalk and the recent XML Schema draft use the namespace identifier
as the
> schema identifier.


> In other words, namespaces are dead (for database documents) as ways of
> naming elements independent of any other considerations. They are now

	Not always. You can always use a "urn:" based namespace URI to prevent
linking the namespace to a schema.

> Congratulations to all concerned.
> The practical question is now what to do? Should we just lay down and die;
> we go back to architectural forms; should we invent a parallel namespace
PI that is
> concerned with uniquely identifying names and not with tieing elements to
a schema?

> The first thing that is required is for W3C to create a Schema PI, in a
> fashion to the Stylesheet PI. In the absense of that mechanism, the
Devourers can
> excuse themselves that there is nothing else to use for invoking schemas
apart from
> namespaces.

	Agreed. This is an easier to understand, more flexible solution which is
more akin to the present mechanism of associating a DTD to a document than
the proposed linkage to the namespace URI.

	One issue to consider, however, is the impact of either mechanism of
schema/namespace association on how a document containing elements from
multiple namespaces ought be validated.


Jonathan Borden

Received on Saturday, 5 June 1999 13:14:39 UTC