[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thursday 06 March 2003 12:40 pm, Jeff Lowery wrote:
> > without a significant change in programming models,
> > local context, and local interpretation is *all* you have.
>
> Urgh. I don't understand why you say this. I do agree that the registry
> would be overhead (though less than you would think, see below), but I
> don't know how one could assign ownership of a nonconflicting,
> short-sequence namespace identifier through any other mechanism than a
> registry.
My question is: why do you need to? I always hear that rationale that "we need
to mix and match arbitrary tag sets", but that only matters if you do it
blindly, and somehow have a magical dispatch table keyed off the prefix or
the URI. That's generally not the case, and generally not open-ended even if
it exists (though you *could* do it using a registry).
If that's not true, you will have some form of convention/agreement in place
that let's you know what to expect.... you'll know what a name:space is, and
an html:p. In that case, the registry is largely superfluous, because if you
and I have a convention to use foo: prefixes in our data interchange, why
should we care if some other party uses it? If we expect to deal with their
data at some point, we might, but we might at that point also negotiate the
use of a different prefix.
For vocabularies that people *do* care enough about to standardize, there are
already registration vehicles in place.
> Just to hammer this nail one more time: there's no need to 'consult' the
> registry.
OK. This was a bit of a misunderstanding. Your registry is really just for
humans to use? That might help people who write standards.
|
