- From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:46:25 +0100
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: "Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@boeing.com>, "G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@cranesoftwrights.com>, "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>, xmlschema-dev@w3.org, ekimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>
2009/9/2 <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>: > Hi, Scott. Further endorsing the advice that Henry and Eliot have given > you, I suggest you might be interested in the TAG's finding that > specifically encourages you to provide useful information that can be > retrieved using the namespace URI. See [1]. > > Noah > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/ ...but avoid using dates, for example: http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema would have been much better as: http://www.w3.org/XSLT http://www.w3.org/XMLSchema ....then you don't have to reassure newbies that they really are using modern technologies (2.0 and 1.1), despite what they may think from the namespace. I would say the main thing is to choose a namespace that wont need to change, so don't use dates, versions, "beta", codenames etc. Also the namespace is often its branding, so using product names might be great until marketing change their minds and call the product something else... if the xml is visible to the customer they may ask for the namespace to change too. So as an example, if the company is called "foo" and the product is "foobar", you would probably choose "http://foo.com/foobar", which is most likely going to be ok, but I'm beginning to think that "http://foo.com/ns" is the better choice. -- Andrew Welch http://andrewjwelch.com Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:47:06 UTC