[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com> writes:
> The reportedly soon-to-turn-into-a-pumpkin XLink Working Group has
> blessed us with yet another round of drafts for XPointer, releasing a
> trio of Proposed Recommendations. [1-3] The foundation PR, the XPointer
> Framework[1], both opens up the prospect of other developers creating
> XPointer schemes and burdens them with extra namespace baggage that the
> W3C reserves only to itself the right to avoid.
<snip summary="useful summary of history"/>
<snip summary="anti-W3C hyperbole"/>
The issue Simon is exercised about is user-defined XPointer scheme
names. The XPointer Framework PR spec. [1] mandates the use of QNames
with prefixes (pf:sname) for non-W3C scheme names.
The logic of this decision is as follows:
1) schemes are going to be popular (Simon himself has already
defined several);
2) short scheme names are likely to collide;
3) collision is an interop nightmare;
4) scheme names therefore need to incorporate domain names in some way;
5) we'll reuse the nsdecl/nsprefix design pattern.
Constructive discussion on where the above logic falls down and/or how
the above goals can be met in other ways will be welcome, here and/or
to www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org.
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-framework/
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
|
