xml-dev - Re: simple question on namespaces.

[Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>

> <rant subject="namespace kvetching" frequency="every 6 months or so">
> All attempts to assign meaning to namespace names (which are URI
> references) are ex post facto and irrelevant to the aims of the
> namespace recommendation, which is to make names unique for
> practical purposes in the Internet context.  This is a useful
> thing to do, and the namespace recommendation does it.

That's exactly why I'm saying that http: should be removed.

Too bad W3C namespaces such as : 
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
are confusing people, *assigning* some meaning to 
the namespace names.

xmlns:xsl="www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"

if better, because it better reflects what *you* are saying.

Who is assigning meaning to namespace names? I think it is W3C.
Not me for sure. I'm suggesting to *remove* the meaning.

If W3C will use 
xmlns:xsl="www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
it will be clear that namespaces really have no meaning yet.

I think it was even better to use www.w3.org.1999.XSL.Transform

Why it is :
<rant subject="namespace kvetching" frequency="every 6 months or so">

Because W3C is using URLs for namespaces, but *not* 
'some unique strings with no semantics attached'. 

URL is *not* some unique string with no semantics attached. 

What was the rationale of W3C for doing that ? No answer yet.

If "it should be just a unique string" why it does not *look* like 
just unique string, but every W3C namespace looks like a *URL* ?
Why not remove http: - that will make in not a URL, but will have 
all the current  benefits of uniqueness ?

Rgds.Paul.

PS. I have a strange feeling that I'm repeating myself. I apologize 
and will not participate in this thread any longer.