Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: xml-dev <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:27:31 -0400 (EDT)
Eliot Kimber writes:
> Oren Ben-Kiki wrote:
> > Providing three different namespaces which have the same
> > semantics would force application writers to abandon this
> > assumption. In XHTML, 'traditional:p', 'strict:p' and
> > 'frameset:p' are the same thing. This would seriously mess XHTML
> > applications up - put another way, it would cause generic XML
> > applications to fail on XHTML documents.
> Why would three name spaces cause more failures than one name space?
> Either you know what the names mean or you don't.
Because human beings write computer programs:
1. It is necessary to perform three tests rather than one to identify
a name from XHTML: that means three separate patterns in XSL (for
example), three separate contexts in a context-sensitive search
engine, three separate XML queries, three separate XPointers,
All of this means three times the opportunity for bugs and
interoperability problems (and yet more accusations that the W3C
cannot create specs that work together).
2. If the intention of XHTML is to continue to create new Namespaces
for future versions of XHTML, you run into a serious deployment
problem where old software will not work properly with new
documents. If you don't believe that versioning is a problem on
the Web, then look at the lack of even Java 1.1 applets for general
use (because Netscape 3.0 doesn't have a Java 1.1 VM).
All the best,
David Megginson firstname.lastname@example.org
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)