xml-dev - Re: Begging the Question

["Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>]

Sam:
> Well, it's good to see XML-DEV ringing in the New Year
> with (ka-boom) Yet Another Namespace Thread....

Aha! An acronym: YANT.

Simon:
> It's not approved by the W3C membership, but it seems run right
> through that non-prohibition on a regular basis, and may actually
> have more relevance to the long term outcome of this discussion
> that the Namespaces REC itself.
> [1] - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html

Of course, but the DesignIssues are a one way rant. I for one would like to
see TimBL/DanC argue these Axioms out on these mailing lists: they are too
ambiguous for anyone to cite in their current state.
That's not to say that the DesignIssues don't contribute anything to this
discussion: on the contrary, due to its "Semantic Web" slanted view, it
often says that namespaces should be dereferenced:-

[[[
New namepsaces must be designed assuming the use of schemas, and being test
cases for the schema language drafts, and not relying on DTD functionality.
Where the functionality being introduced maps onto a logical assertion
model, then the mapping onto the RDF model below should be defined, and,
normally, RDF used.
]]] - [1]

I'm not sure I have interpreted the grammar of that phrase correctly (it's
hardly clear), and note that TimBL doesn't say why they should be designed
with Schema usage in mind.
I remain neutral on the topic, BTW: just because I'm quoting TimBL doesn't
mean I dis/agree with him.

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
http://infomesh.net/sbp/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ [ERT/GL/PF]
"Perhaps, but let's not get bogged down in semantics."
   - Homer J. Simpson, BABF07.