[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On a planet where a namespace being dereferenced depends
on context or whim.
Namespaces are not de facto. They are de jure in
specs that reference the namespace rec.
There are three "halves" to the sentence:
.5. Namespaces should not be core
.5. It is likely they will be.
.5. It ensures RDF gets a bigger niche.
Which two halves do you disagree with?
Most here aren't saying namespaces shouldn't be
in XML. Some are saying namespaces shouldn't be
in the core. I'm one of the second group. It's
a system control for web systems.
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
At 08:01 AM 04/04/02 -0600, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>True. As soon as one starts depending on namespaces,
>one has pretty much said "web only" for the XML.
On what planet is this true? Not this one.
> Namespaces should not be core, but
>it is likely they will be. It is one way to ensure
>that RDF gets a bigger niche.
I disagree with both halves of the sentence. Namespaces
have de facto become part of the way that basic XML is
basically used by basically everybody. And RDF will
stand or fall on its own merits. -Tim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
