Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Brownell <db@Eng.Sun.COM>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 18:35:19 -0700
Charles Reitzel wrote:
> I missed a week and was just catching up. I came across this from Andrew
> Layman and felt a need to respond.
Actually, the quote was from me.
> > >Namespaces need versioning. URIs can easily include date
> > >codes like "02Nov1997"; W3C itself uses such a scheme, as
> > >you can see by looking at versions of the namespace spec.
> Yes, the FPI and/or URL needs versioning. With a decent namespace spec, the
> prefix used in documents should not. The fact that the prefix is, for all
> practical purposes, a public identifier, controlled by the DTD author, and
> tied to a specific verion of the DTD, prevents document authors from
> changing DTD versions without rewriting their documents. - Not useful.
> The original namespace WD did not have these flaws.
I don't see what you're saying. All versions of the namespace spec
have used the URL as _just_ an identifier. The identifiers need to
reflect an exact set of meanings, hence they need versioning. The
prefix was chosen and used by the document author, hence needed no
more versioning than the document itself: "this version", versus
the case of the namespace URI (meaning defined by a third party, and
updated/maintained/changed over time), "the version before that big
That is, I don't see an issue that's tied only to the _new_ draft
of namespace support, or even one that could be removed.
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)