Lists Home |
Date Index |
On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 10:46, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 11:05:13AM -0500, Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-04-04 at 19:11, Ronald Bourret wrote:
> > > Namespaces were (and still are) a good idea. Using URLs as example URIs
> > > in the namespaces spec was a bad idea. It led people to think about
> > > dereferencing namespace names which, if you think about it, is about as
> > > odd as dereferencing Java package names.
> What's odd about that?
> Pretty handy, if you ask me.
Pretty handy if you know all the extras with which to preface the
package name. I don't think I know of anyone insisting that
machine-readable RDF should live at those unknown URIs either, though
perhaps it would be handy for some IDEs...
> > Sure, you can come up with a
> > > mechanism to do it, but why would you want to?
> > Perhaps Sun was wiser simply because they DIDN'T use URIs as their
> > identifiers, and thereby avoided all this controversy.
> > Alas, we're stuck.
> Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I dereference a namespace URI!
No, Mark. It hurts when all the baggage surrounding URIs makes it
infinitely complicated to describe in detail something as simple as how
an XML element or attribute name - I thought these were just labels -
Namespace URIs have not been kind to XML, and I see no sign of the
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!