[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Nicholas,
" OK. Following RFC 2396, namespaces are resources because they have an URI.
But resources aren't namespace. Hence, RDDL should be named NDL."
A few points: First, every namespace is a URI, and conversely _every URI can
be a namespace name_, hence there is no absolute distinction between the
two, aside from how they are intended to be used. But I've already said that
I believe the definition of a "Resource" is hopeless, so there's not much
point in pursuing this line of reasoning futher.
The real reason RDDL is named RDDL is a little joke. The acronym "RDDL" is
pronounced like the English word "riddle". My little joke is that everyone
was wondering: what is at the end of a namespace URI? No one had an answer.
"perhaps nothing", "perhaps something". This confused many people who
thought that every URI was associated with a _document_. Of course we know
that this is not the case by definition, but nonetheless, there is a common
_expectation_ that typing a URI into a browser will result in something
appearing on the screen.
A good rule for the Web, and systems in general, is the concept of least
surprise, and XML Namespace URIs which use the "http" scheme and aren't
associated with a document violate that rule. Hence the "riddle": what is
there?
RDDL. It is a play on words. The name happens to be reasonably good:
"Resource Directory Description Language". It describes _directories_ or
collections of resources. RDDL was not the first name proposed but all the
back and forth is in the XML-DEV archives. So in the interest of a good
acronym we use "resource" vs. "namespace". You must realize that we have
priorities :-) and try not to take names too seriously because this all
should be just a little fun.
Jonathan
|
