[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henry Thompson writes:
>>Surely that's not the point -- the point for interop is simply that
>>any given application knows the names of the schemes it implements.
>>Reasonable guarantees of uniqueness of scheme names, such as that
>>provided by using URIs via QNames, are all that's required to prevent
>>mistakes here.
I don't see the addition of enormous verbosity through extra namespace
declarations providing those applications with any additional guarantee
of uniqueness. If anything, it seems likely to decrease reliable
identification of schemes as developers make mistakes in all that
redundant information.
>> No-one _ever_ claimed that using QNames would mean that a
>> general-purpose XPointer processor would be able to look up the
>> scheme name and find some operationalisable description of scheme
>> semantics.
So what exactly does using QNames buy us? What are the odds of
conflicting XPointer scheme names anyway? So far I've created a few
schemes, the XLink WG has created a few, and the SVG WG has created one
that starts off with "svg".
This proposal appears to be 100% cost and 0% benefit. Perhaps the only
amusing part of it is that the W3C reserves itself the right not to have
to use namespaces for its schemes.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
