OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: why distinctions within XHTML?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
  • To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>, XML-Dev Mailing list <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
  • Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:25:30 -0400

While I have indeed said many of the things quoted to you, I have not given
permission for them to be quoted out of context. 

When I have substantive comment to make about the PR I shall do so myself.
Until then, any comments from me should not be considered. 

Thank you. 


At 03:24 PM 8/30/99 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>At 02:21 PM 8/30/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>At 02:05 PM 8/30/99 -0400, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
>>>Assuming that the WG has a clear, though unstated, roadmap for integrating
>>>its usage of namespaces with future XML schema developments seems like a
>>>very bad idea indeed.
>>Wait a minute, nobody has said that. How does the HTML WG have the power to
>>"integrate" it's uage of namespaces with someone else's work product? 
>Mark was suggesting earlier that those namespaces would provide information
>connected to schemas.  This does not appear to be a good assumption, which
>is most of what I was saying.  However, it doesn't seem like the HTML WG
>has really explained why it wants three namespaces, how (if) those
>namespaces should be used in conjunction with validation, and what possible
>value those namespaces might provide (beyond the DOCTYPE declaration) in
>the future.
>It does seem like it would be reasonable for the HTML WG to integrate its
>product with the Namespaces in XML recommendation by providing an explicit
>statement of how it plans to use namespaces and what the reasoning behind
>that usage of namespaces looks like.  There is no explanation of that
>reasoning in the present draft - just an announcement of three namespaces
>(3.1.1-3) and a brief example of non-conformant integration with MathML
>Also, the Future Directions area (section 6) would be a good place to
>discuss plans for working with the schema WG, if indeed there are such
>plans.  Document profiling is a tool that would be useful anywhere in XML;
>it doesn't seem like these directions are expliciting limited to work that
>only relies on the HTML WG itself.
>>This is where assumptions lead to alot of misinformation and assertions
>>that the sky is falling. 
>The sky isn't falling - it's just that it's hard to tell (from out here)
>whether the sky is clear or cloudy, and whether it's raining or snowing.
>It's not clear on what grounds namespaces are being assigned or how they
>should be used.  Given that lack of information, it seems reasonable to
>proceed cautiously - and critically.
>>We can certainly sit here and poke sticks at the process, but it's what we
>>have to work with right now. Within this process, it is a given that
>>non-participants and non-member-employee individuals won't have direct
>>access to the drafts that haven't yet been made public. I don't think we're
>>really here to argue the appropriateness of that right now. 
>The W3C's closed process is unfortunate.  However, that doesn't mean that
>outsiders should read drafts under the assumption that 'future drafts will
>fix everything', which appeared to be the drift of your earlier comments.  
>If the W3C wants meaningful public comments, it has to be prepared to deal
>with comments from those of use who don't have access the full set of
>background information locked away in members-only areas.  Saying 'trust
>us' isn't enough.  It requires explanation of underlying assumptions, at
>It would also help to identify where these outside comments should go, as
>do most of the XML drafts...
>>But that lag in information dissemination shouldn't be a platform for leaps
>>in assumption either. The people working on these things aren't stupid --
>>nor are they unaware of conversations like this one, in this forum and in
>>many others. 
>Indeed - they shouldn't be a platform for any assumptions, as stated above,
>including assumptions of magical integration with future schemas or a
>better world coming with the next revisions.
>Now I have to go back and forward a bunch of these messages to the official
>W3C areas... hopefully we've beaten this issue enough already.
>Simon St.Laurent
>XML: A Primer (2nd Ed - September)
>Building XML Applications
>Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
>Sharing Bandwidth / Cookies


Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
Coming in September --- Mastering XML

Founder, WebGeek Communications            http://www.webgeek.com
Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org
Director, HWG Online Education             http://www.hwg.org/services/classes

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS