OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] WD for Namespaces 1.1

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

The point is not pessimistic; it is conservative. 
It is based on prior experience with the W3C 
specification process.  Namespaces are a good 

First, they were just name disambiguators, hidden 
system properties, then schema references, making them 
part of the content.  We seem to stay on the 
slippery slope of minimalism and incomplete 
design guidelines.  That makes these processes 

So experience says, don't believe or trust; 
specify, verify, and hold 
to the original agreement until a case is 
made for change which adds value, not simply 
specification compression.  Given that namespaces are 
supported as currently defined in current 
specifications, and that changing that suggests 
to reasonable people that DTDs must be discarded, 
put into a separate spec, or redesigned, then 
the impact of leaving the design as is is less 
than the minimal change suggested.

One might ask, which would have the most 
effect, keeping Namespaces in the current 
rec or degrading the use of DTDs?  My guess 
is that if we include more than the XML-Devers 
and the minorities of the TAG and the W3C 
WGs, we may get a vote for no change.

Not everyone wants them or needs them.  Those 
that do have them now.  Why put them in core? 
That is the value added I'm waiting to hear about.

Otherwise, do what Tobin suggests and simply make the changes 
which are not controversial in the two specifications. 

I'd love what Joe suggests:  give us back the 
power of SGML DTDs if there is to be some kind 
of redesign.  But if we are really headed down 
that path, I'd prefer to see what DSDL comes up 
with.  There is considerable experience backing 
that up and reliable standards processes.

We should leave room for different organizations 
to standardize and specify Internet systems. 
The Web Is Not The Internet.   The Web is as 
Paul argues, RESTful.  The Internet is not. 
I am more convinced everyday that we need to 
accept and potentially embrace a world in which 
"information space" is processed by multiple 
and even competing systems yet unifiable 
not by addressing, but by declaration.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:kpako@yahoo.com]

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.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS