[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Mike Champion wrote:
>
> ...
>
> This discussion makes it sound like this was all for nothing -- there
> seems to be a deep presumption that there should be a canonical
> prefix/suffix/acronym for every semantically distinct format.
> I don't have strong feelings, myself, but if the W3C orthodoxy
> is simply rolling a rock uphill that rolls back down everytime
> someone sits down to rest, why are we bothering with all this
> namespace URI voodo, controversy, and permanent education campaign?
If the W3C XML Schema language did not occupy such a central place in
the emerging XML Cosmology, there would be no request for a canonical
acronym or file format. In other words, for the thousands of
vocabularies that are not so prominent, there is nobody asking for
canonical, globally distinct acronyms. Therefore the URIs are what
distinguish them.
> At what point would we conclude that it was all a good but
> unworkable idea, and just use IANA or whatever to globally
> map short acronyms onto namespace prefixes and file suffixes?
I don't think that scales. You end up with random (and thus hard to
memorize) prefixes/suffixes because the one you really want is already
taken. And the problem gets worse and worse year after year. After some
number of years all the TLAs are gone and we're left with 4LAs and then
5LAs and then ....
--
"When I walk on the floor for the final execution, I'll wear a denim
suit. I'll walk in there like Willie Nelson, John Wayne, Will Smith
-- Men in Black -- James Brown. Maybe do a Michael Jackson moonwalk."
Congressman James Traficant.
|
