[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Book that covers namespace issues?
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:04:18 -0500
The problem is that as Simon's filters demonstrate,
the namespace practices depend on what the user or developer
is doing with the namespace in a context that can change depending
on the tools used and the intent (eg, who is the authority over
the semantic). I'm not sure we get best practices or authoritative
recommendations without locking down the other specs more concretely,
that is, XML Schema, infoSets, etc. Because namespaces go beyond
what markup languages (eg, SGML) allowed except via rarely
implemented features (SUBDOC, CONCUR), we are very much beyond
traditional markup experience. XML Schema is still experimental
despite status. Namespaces started out as *just a property to
distinguish names in a tree* and are now all things
to all people because we are tieing semantics directly to
GIs as OOPMen like to do or joining in files as tableMen have
to do. But XML isn't OOP or relational. It's just a chunkOData
made to fit the occasion. Steve Newcomb had it right: a GI
isn't a type name, it's a property, the BigAttribute. The specs
can call it anything they like, but the architecture isn't there.
Messy. I don't think the W3C can sort this out easily. So in
that view, a practices document might help but I don't think
it can do more than say why a given practice is good or bad
in a given context. A simple good vs bad won't do.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
That would be great. But personally, I'd like to see it have some
development participation or sanctioning from the W3C. For one thing, they
started it. :-) Also, we've seen some of the brightest minds in the field
repeatedly debate many sides of these issues, without firm resolution of
most of them. Normally, I'd just go read the spec for myself. But given the
viewpoints expressed thus far, I wouldn't trust my own interpretation of
this one. We need some official answers.