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

RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1

• To: 'Ronald Bourret' <rpbourret@r...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 08:26:34 -0600

If it is an errata change, then it would not 
break DTDs.  It is a system design change.  

XML DTDs, such as they are, are in XML and 
are in wide use. 
 
Namespaces are not core and should not be 
in the XML infoset unless the infoset itself 
is layered into component profiles.   That 
was an ambitious mistake. 

Namespaces aren't a content type. 
They are a flag for Web XML processors.  One 
can write perfectly valid and perfectly 
well-formed XML and never declare a namespace. 
Different things are going on in the real world.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Ronald Bourret [mailto:rpbourret@r...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> What is the problem with keeping them in a separate
> spec?

Very little. It allows Names to have colons in them and still be legal,
but that appears to be the only technical consequence.

>  What is the advantage of rolling them in?

Clarity -- the same as rolling errata into a spec. It also formalizes
what's going on in the real world anyway.

> Namespaces are a system feature.  They shouldn't
> be in the core any more than XML Schema support
> shouldn't be in the core and XSLT shouldn't be
> in the core.  They are framework components.

I disagree. Namespaces are part of the info set -- XML Schemas and XSLT
are not. Furthermore, namespaces are the only part of the infoset that
are not defined in the XML 1.0 spec. Put another way, namespaces are
part of XML 1.0 in a de facto sense, even if they lack de jure status.

> What needs to be fixed as Mike points out are
> the other specifications that all treat the
> infoset differently.  That is the mess.

Agreed. The other part of the mess is to get DTDs and namespaces to play
together.

• Prev by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Previous by thread: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by thread: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread