Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Paul Tchistopolskii <email@example.com>
- To: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:30:49 -0800
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Bray <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> <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 :
are confusing people, *assigning* some meaning to
the namespace names.
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
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 ?
PS. I have a strange feeling that I'm repeating myself. I apologize
and will not participate in this thread any longer.