Re: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used

-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke <reschke@muenster.de>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>; abrahams@acm.org <abrahams@acm.org>; Al
Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: abrahams@acm.org <abrahams@acm.org>; xml-uri@w3.org <xml-uri@w3.org>
Date: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:11 PM
Subject: RE: Language = Namespace. was: How namespace names might be used


>Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>> - a namespace corresponds to a language.  I know that some don't want
this
>> model but honestly without it all work on XML should stop
>> immediately and be
>> restarted with a proper footing. What is XHTML? a Language! That
>> is actually
>> what the letter stands for. There is meaning in it.  The meaning is NOT
>> carried by out of band discussion, it is carried in the XHTML
>> specification.
>
>So how do you plan to resolve the issue that there are three different DTDs
>for HTML? Should they be mapped into just one XML schema?


I think it reasonable to make four schemata.  One each to corerspond to the
specific HTML
sub-languages xHTML-strict etc.  One for the super-language xHTML.
That is what corresponds to the namespace which is defined in the spec.

>I fear that this statement (taken together with many of Dan's earlier
>remarks) confirms that there is a disconnect about how things are supposed
>to work. If your goal is to have
>
> namespace ~ language


Ignoring the complexities of mixed-namesapce documents,
and assuming ~ means a 1:1  correspondence, yes.

> namespace name ~ URI where a schema (or another language definition)
>resides



Almost.  URIs don't have a "where".   Think of them as identifers.

1)  Namespace name ~URI   ie  subclass (namespace, resource)

We do not have to define all the languages which can ever be used to
describe a language now before we allow a language to be identified by a
URI,
nor would it be wise to try.  (Same with images)

But we do have a way of defining the syntactic parts of an XML language --
schemas.
And it is very useful to make that available as a represnetation, primitrive
but useful,
of a namespace.   But it doens't mean anyone HAS to retrieve it or that it
HAS to be
a schema.

>then IMHO this needs to be formalized and treated as an official W3C
>document (with members voting on it and so on).


We ill obviously have to try to work toward this leve of endorsement -- but
we have a lot built implcitly
on it already.  It is always a trap to find that the technology is endorsed
bu the philosophy under it is not.

DSig needs now to be able to refer to the xml-sachema langage (meaning and
all) and needs
a URI for that to put in the schema in the DSig spec.


People don't want me to lay down the law here, and I would love to get an
argued-out unanimity but how long will it take?
What should we do in the mean time?

>Julian


Tim BL

Received on Monday, 19 June 2000 18:44:42 UTC