Lists Home |
Date Index |
I still don't see your point. It seems you are taking the most pessimistic
view of things but let's walk through your scenarios anyway.
1.) One utilizes namespaces in XML.
2.) The namespaces are HTTP URLs.
3.) There are RDDL that can be retrieved from the URL.
So what? Only a poorly designed application would require that the RDDL
document be retrieved from the HTTP URL that was the namespace URI before
proper processing could occur.
Secondly if somehow, RDDL takes off and people who use URNs are pressured to
provide network retrievable RDDL documents at some HTTP URL then mappings
between these URNs and URLs will begin to show up (which is the original
purpose of URNs anyway).
So I repeat,
How does using namespaces imply that XML usage will be "web only"?
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #138
The passageways to and within my domain will be well-lit with fluorescent
Regrettably, the spooky atmosphere will be lost, but my security patrols will
be more effective.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
To: "'Dare Obasanjo'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "'Marcus Carr'"
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] WD for Namespaces 1.1
> Because as Marcus points out, the history of web
> specifications and implementations is that
> people say one thing and do another. RDDL and the
> use of RDF in RDDL will be a shining example. You
> are trying to use logic to overcome experience.
> It doesn't work that way.
> Public IDs can be URIs and that satisfied the
> requirement for web-independence. On the other
> hand, TimBL to Paul Prescod:
> ">The other is
> > magical urn: URIs used primarily for XML namespaces. If something like
> > RDDL ever gets deployed and becomes useful, people who use those
> > non-resolvable URIs will wish they had just used http: URIs.
> > We aren't
> > at that point yet, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. (by the way, I
> > was historically a big booster of urn: style URIs for namespaces)
> Welcome back out of the cold! ;-)"
> So who do we believe? Namespaces should not be core. That doesn't
> say at all that they shouldn't be implemented; just not required.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:email@example.com]
> How does using namespaces imply that XML usage will be "web only"?
> are simply a dissambiguating mechanism, the fact that many people confuse
> issues by using HTTP URLs for namespace URIs does not have anything to with
> XML being "web only" as you put it.
> Please expand on this point.
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com