Re: [xml-dev] namespaces redux (was: Re: [xml-dev] [XML Schema]Here's ho

[Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>]

>> 3. Avoid using URLs, the globally unique benefit
>> is far outweighed by the confusion cost
>
> Are you recommending that URNs be used rather than URLs?

I'm advocating simple strings for simple cases, for example for a
config file someone might be tempted to use:

xmlns:c="http://mycomp.com/someproduct/v1.1/config/";

whereas they could just do:

xmlns:c="config"

- it will never need to change
- there is no confusion if something exists at the end of the url, or
if the domain has to actually exist.
- there is no confusion around a trailing slash
- in XPath 3.0 you can have nice short self contained xpaths.
- its easy to remember
- the markup can be reused as its not associated with some product
- it still allows embedding of other markup, or this markup to be
embedded elsewhere

> If yes, doesn't that eliminate the ability to use things such as RDDL?

I don't know RDDL I'm afraid.

> XML Schema uses URLs for namespaces, as does XSLT. Do you believe that to be a mistake?

The dates were a mistake, and (I think) they should really have a
trailing slash, and they aren't the easiest to remember so unless you
have tool support or know them off by heart you need to look them
up.... but other than that for a global spec it's hard to argue
against a url.

> What do you mean by "the confusion cost"?

Hopefully the above bullets covers it, I can't think of any more for now.



-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com