- From: Clark C. Evans <cce@clarkevans.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 15:33:50 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
- cc: xml-uri@w3.org, Michael Champion <mike.champion@softwareag-usa.com>
Tim, Is Mike Champion's summary correct or am I missing an important detail? I can certainly see the complexity that comes with a relative, or "context sensitive" namespace mechanism. Is there a use-case summary? It would help to see what is gained with this additional complexity. Perhaps a cost/benefit analysis would help us along. If the benefit is clear, then I believe most of us would gladly accept the additional complexity. I'm sure you have already gone through this; however, are there existing othogonal mechanisms which could satisfy the above mentioned use-case requirements? For instance; could entities, or server-side-includes be used to "contextualize" the namespace at an organization's boundary? In other words, could a lower-level mechanism do the dirty-work; or is this option too messy? On another note; given adequate tools what kind of configuration management burdens would this introduce to the average user? I am a bit worried that this may shift the burden from large organizations capable of managing the "internal complexity" to small organizations which may have a more difficult time handling the "exported complexity". So, I guess I'm asking about the user impact; already namespaces (especially the multiple-partition stuff) impose significant complexity on XML; will this make it much worse? What parts can't be automated/hidden? It is great to have a public discussion for this important issue; I'm looking forward to a thoughtful discussion. Thank you. Kind Regards, Clark
Received on Monday, 15 May 2000 15:30:37 UTC