[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Another look at namespaces

• From: Marc.McDonald@D...
• To: ricko@a..., xml-dev@i..., timbl@w..., ann@w...
• Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 17:58:56 -0700

> At 03:24 PM 9/17/99 -0700, Marc.McDonald@D... wrote:
> 
> >. In particular, why should XHTML
> >go off and decide a mechanism  to solve a problem which is a general XML
> >problem and is being worked on by the schema group?
> 
> We didn't decide someone else's problem. We took a work in progress and
> used it as the basis of *one* aspect (out of several) for our decision on
> the namespace issue. 
> 
> Ann
> 
> But that is jumping the gun - part of a work in progress  is in a proposed
> recommendation. 
> 
> Things can change before it is a recommendation, particularly when the
> only published document on schemas is a requirements document, not even a
> working draft or proposed recommendation status. 
> 
> I can show you a lot of XML files that used the wrong capitalization for
> XML declarations because it was changed with the official 1.0 release. XSL
> has changed between versions. The URI for RDF has changed with the final
> release.
> 
> I seem to remember some rather explicit language in the status of document
> section of working drafts:
> 
> "This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by
> other documents at any time. While we do not anticipate substantial
> changes, we still caution that further changes are possible. It is
> inappropriate to use this document as reference material or to cite it as
> other than 'work in progress'". 
> 
I would think using something that hasn't even reached 'work in progress'
status and putting it in a proposed recommendation is far more problematic
than using a working draft as reference material.

Again, from the rationales I've seen, you aren't really using namespaces as
defined by the spec. You are trying to define XML modules which is not part
of namespaces but I would think are part of the schema group's task. 

I don't mind the XHTML DTD broken into modular pieces, just don't talk about
namespaces at all. The general XML solution will apply equally well to XHTML
modules when it is developed.



Marc B. McDonald
Principal Software Scientist
Design Intelligence, Inc.
1111 Third Avenue, Suite 1500
Seattle, WA  98101
marc.mcdonald@d...
Ph: 206.343-7797
Fax: 206.343.7750

http://www.design-intelligence.com

P. S. Cops or Crooks? Isn't it more important which you choose than us ;)

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Another look at namespaces
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Another look at namespaces
• Next by Date: RE: Another look at namespaces
• Previous by thread: Re: Another look at namespaces
• Next by thread: RE: Another look at namespaces
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread