Re: Moving on (was Re: URIs quack like a duck)

On Thu, Jun 01, 2000 at 10:28:49AM +0100, David Carlisle wrote:
> > Sounds fine to me. It just means that I'll wait for 2.0 before I
> > implement anything using XML Namespaces. I don't mean that to be facetious.
> > Its just that, since I assumed (which was my fault) that namespace names
> > were URIs in all respects, I now consider this version to be broken for
> > my purposes...
> 
> As I suspected, you haven't been using namespaces at all.
> Which is why you can be so casual about scrapping two years worth of
> XML development.

Very true...

> What _are_ the purposes for which you want to use XML namespaces?

The semantic web infrastructure that Tim has been talking about for 
a while now... It mostly depends on RDF but so far RDF has a fairly
tight relationship with XML (not due to the design but due to market
realities)...

I'm becoming more comfortable with creating a new attribute that
does identify the namespace in the URI sense of identification.

-MM

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mealling	|      Vote Libertarian!       | www.rwhois.net/michael
Sr. Research Engineer   |   www.ga.lp.org/gwinnett     | ICQ#:         14198821
Network Solutions	|          www.lp.org          |  michaelm@netsol.com

Received on Thursday, 1 June 2000 10:16:01 UTC