Re: Minimum required of a system called "Namespaces in XML"

> <br>
Grr what's that html doing:-)

> My possibly very mistaken impression (counterexamples, please speak
> up) is that almost all of its defenders are those who were intimately involved
> in creating it.

well I wasn't involved in creating it:-)

My impression is just the opposite: that people using the spec are
quite happy (this subject never comes up on xpath or xsl lists except
for the odd beginner question of "what do I put at a namespace"
to which the answer of "nothing, if you don't want to" usually
suffices.

It seems to me that it is just a small clique involved in defining URI
syntax that has problems with the spec (and the power to try to get
the namespace spec changed)

> The fundamental problem with the namespace spec is that it creates misleading
> expectations.

This leads to incorrect expectations for absolute beginners, (and I've
never said I think it was the best possible idea) It certainly is not
sufficient cause to change the spec now, and not sufficient cause to
create the new type of XML document whose element names depend on
context that the absolute proposal implies.

> The namespace spec would work just as well if namespace names were
> required to be serial numbers generated by some algorithm given in the
> namespace spec itself.

yes of course, but what algorithm would you have suggested they used
(to get globally unique identifiers without use of a central registry)?

> The namespace spec provides no statement whatsoever, except for an odd
> disclaimer pertaining to schemas, about what kinds of URIs are appropriate,
> what resources they might identify
Because every URI may be used as a namespace name.

> That URIs should be persistent seems to contradict the statement that it
> doesn't matter what they identify.

Not at all it means that I shouldn't (but I do) use namespace names
starting with http://www.dcarlisle.demon.co.uk as I can't guarantee
that those names won't be used by someone else later (if I stop
paying demon and so lose control over dcarlisle.demon)

> Character strings are persistent independent of what they happen to mean
well that is true, but it has the same meaning as "unique", one could
say the namespace name "foo" is unique but what is meant is someone
may reuse the name with the intention of it being a distinct
namespace.

David

Received on Tuesday, 6 June 2000 13:14:39 UTC