Re: [xml-dev] XML Namespaces 1.1

[Michael Fuller <MICHAEL.S.FULLER@saic.com>]

Rick,

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:00:26AM -0400, Rick Yorgason wrote:
> I mean, we're talking about a language that has its roots in *browsers*.  

XML does not have its roots in browsers.
It has its roots in SGML (actually, XML *is* SGML) ...

> I think there's pretty good precedent that people understand the  
> concept of "If your environment doesn't support a feature yet, then  
> don't use that feature yet."

... and there is pretty good precedent that backwards compatibility
does NOT get broken.  (So much so, that when SGML was extended 
to allow XML to be defined as an SGML subset, that those changes
were done in a 100% backwards compatible way.)

XML is not HTML and does not come from the browser community.  While
it was developed under the aegis of the W3C, its raison d'etre was
the provision of a simplified version of SGML.  Correctness and
compatability have always been hallmarks of XML.  Breaking existing
software has not.

In fact, with HTML 5, the HTML community has taken a sharp
turn _away_ from the relationship with SGML/XML.

(And so the wheel turns.
HTML started out as looks-like-but-isn't-SGML,
became SGML for a while, and now is returning
to looks-like-but-isn't-SGML.  A pity.)

> I know I probably sound a bit confrontational, but I don't think you  
> actually believe that it's as hopeless as you make it out to be.  I  
> mean, your own namespace proposal is quite a bit more disruptive and  
> ambitious than this one, so surely you still have *some* hope that  
> reform is possible.

I suspect that _is_ as hopeless as Liam makes it out to be.
I doubt that the horribleness of XML namespaces etc. will _ever_
go away or be fixed.  (Ditto XML Schema, but that's a different rant.)
Fixing XML Namespaces inevitably seems to introduce incompatibilities.
Sadly, it probably won't ever happen.

Michael
-- 
TeraText DBS Lead
SAIC Pty Ltd