[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces Defined
- From: Dylan Walsh <Dylan.Walsh@Kadius.Com>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 10:48:16 +0100
Do you just mean that instead of a convention of using say
you would use:
That has the advantage that nobody expects it to be a link you can enter
in a web-browser, and expect to see something (i.e. de-reference it).
Fundamentally it is the same solution - re-using the internet domain
name system to provide unique namespaces. That is the way I look at
namespaces, and why I don't agree with the de-reference crowd.
On the other hand, are you talking about a system which works like Java
packages, where there is a hierarchy of modules?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Rafter [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 10:23 AM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Namespaces Defined
> Discussing this article with a friend of mind left us with a huge
> Why didn't XML pursue a namespace solution more like Java packages.
> has to be a good reason-- maybe it is that packages can be a pain. It
> always seemed easier to get my head around a "package" (think UPS box
> of items) instead of a "namespace". In addition to this, people
> expect to resolve a package name per se, whereas a URL is begging to
> resolved. It does seem to simplify the idea of separating vocabularies
> Any insights?
> Jeff Rafter
> Defined Systems
> XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>