[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
8/12/2002 11:18:14 AM, Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com> wrote:
>But was the use of namespaces really their biggest problem? Why? Because the
>documents would have to add another namespace (silly objection, that)?
>Because they wanted all elements of their vocabulary in one seamless
>anmespace? (I can't think of any technical reason for needing this).
Hmm, HTML is far and away the most successful markup language in history.
There's something to be said for learning from it, not expecting it
to adopt a technology that still baffles its inventors, explainers, implementers,
etc. I can't think of any substantive reason why HTML users would want
anything to do with having links be in a different namespace.
>
>When the HTML folks talk about distaste for adding a new namespace, it baffles
>me. I just looked: XHTML 2.0 uses namespaces. They should either have
>ditched namespaces altogether, or accepted namespaces for their value. Since
>they use namespaces, and thus would not, I think, expect another vocabulary to
>use their use of namespaces to refuse to embed HTML, then they too should not
>use XLink's use of namespaces as reason to shun it, without particular
>technical justification (which I am yet too see).
The way I see it, people want to embed SVG in HTML, or HTML in RSS, and might
learn to love Namespaces as a way to facilitate this. I suspect most think
of links as intrinsic to HTML and wouldn't appreciate it being in a different
namespace. Namespaces are a good TECHNICAL solution for implementers, but
I suspect they are a bewildering complication for most users.
>
|
