Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Nicholas, " OK. Following RFC 2396, namespaces are resources because they have an URI. But resources aren't namespace. Hence, RDDL should be named NDL." A few points: First, every namespace is a URI, and conversely _every URI can be a namespace name_, hence there is no absolute distinction between the two, aside from how they are intended to be used. But I've already said that I believe the definition of a "Resource" is hopeless, so there's not much point in pursuing this line of reasoning futher. The real reason RDDL is named RDDL is a little joke. The acronym "RDDL" is pronounced like the English word "riddle". My little joke is that everyone was wondering: what is at the end of a namespace URI? No one had an answer. "perhaps nothing", "perhaps something". This confused many people who thought that every URI was associated with a _document_. Of course we know that this is not the case by definition, but nonetheless, there is a common _expectation_ that typing a URI into a browser will result in something appearing on the screen. A good rule for the Web, and systems in general, is the concept of least surprise, and XML Namespace URIs which use the "http" scheme and aren't associated with a document violate that rule. Hence the "riddle": what is there? RDDL. It is a play on words. The name happens to be reasonably good: "Resource Directory Description Language". It describes _directories_ or collections of resources. RDDL was not the first name proposed but all the back and forth is in the XML-DEV archives. So in the interest of a good acronym we use "resource" vs. "namespace". You must realize that we have priorities :-) and try not to take names too seriously because this all should be just a little fun. Jonathan
|
