Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com (Henry S. Thompson)
- Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 10:22:23 -0400
At 03:12 PM 10/22/00 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>> It also appears to establish 'facts on the ground' regarding the use
>> of namespaces without the need for a formal W3C process.
>My announcement doesn't signal the establishment of any new 'facts on
>the ground' in the area of what's at namespace URIs. There has been an
>XML Schema document at http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace.xsd for
>over a year now. Furthermore, as I said in my message, this change
>came about _according_ to a formal W3C process, namely an XML Schema
>Working Group vote.
1. Those documents were placed there initially without a formal vote,
according to earlier discussions on this list. While the formal vote you
refer to may effectively ratify such actions, it doesn't appear to address
the general question of whether this approach is appropriate in general.
2. It's not clear (to me at least) that establishing the 'meaning' of XML
Namespace URIs is a job that should be mixed with the creation of the XML
Schemas vocabulary. By formal W3C process, I meant establishing a WG that
would create a document addressing these issues in general.
While some people do appear to believe that namespaces work in a particular
way, I haven't seen any good attempts at justifying that approach.
Attempts (by Dan Connolly et al) on xml-uri all seem to fade quickly in the
face of strong opposition.
I'd suggest that namespaces are important enough that this is worth
resolving in a stronger way than the placement of schemas at W3C-controlled
URIs using an ad hoc convention.
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
XHTML: Migrating Toward XML
http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books