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

Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?

• To: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Subject: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
• Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 15:09:19 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: Message from Mike Champion <mc@x...> of "Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:41:00 EDT." <GD1ZJE08C418252MKUQVHEZU53HBNK.3d57d70c@MChamp>
• Sender: uche.ogbuji@f...

> 8/12/2002 11:18:14 AM, Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...> wrote:
> 
> >But was the use of namespaces really their biggest problem?  Why?  Because the 
> >documents would have to add another namespace (silly objection, that)?  
> >Because they wanted all elements of their vocabulary in one seamless 
> >anmespace?  (I can't think of any technical reason for needing this).
> 
> Hmm, HTML is far and away the most successful markup language in history.
> There's something to be said for learning from it, not expecting it
> to adopt a technology that still baffles its inventors, explainers, implementers,
> etc. I can't think of any substantive reason why HTML users would want
> anything to do with having links be in a different namespace.

I'm missing something.  HTML does not use namespaces so nothing I said above 
applies to it.  I don't know about you, but I don't see a whole lot of XHTML 
out there.  Eric's survey is instructive on this one.


> >When the HTML folks talk about distaste for adding a new namespace, it baffles 
> >me.  I just looked: XHTML 2.0 uses namespaces.  They should either have 
> >ditched namespaces altogether, or accepted namespaces for their value.  Since 
> >they use namespaces, and thus would not, I think, expect another vocabulary to 
> >use their use of namespaces to refuse to embed HTML, then they too should not 
> >use XLink's use of namespaces as reason to shun it, without particular 
> >technical justification (which I am yet too see). 
> 
> The way I see it, people want to embed SVG in HTML, or HTML in RSS, and might
> learn to love Namespaces as a way to facilitate this.  I suspect most think
> of links as intrinsic to HTML and wouldn't appreciate it being in a different
> namespace.   Namespaces are a good TECHNICAL solution for implementers, but
> I suspect they are a bewildering complication for most users.

Perhaps, but that's a different argument altogether.  My point is that if 
XHTML already uses namespaces (and thus introduces the "bewildering 
complexity" you suggest) isn't it strange to say that taking advantage of the 
point of namespaces (i.e. for embedding vocabularies) is burdensome?


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
Track chair, XML/Web Services One Boston: http://www.xmlconference.com/
Basic XML and RDF techniques for knowledge management, Part 7 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think12.html
Keeping pace with James Clark - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-jclark.html
Python and XML development using 4Suite, Part 3: 4RDF - http://www-105.ibm.com/developerworks/education.nsf/xml-onlinecourse-bytitle/8A1EA5A2CF4621C386256BBB006F4CEC

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>

• References:
  • Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Shortcomings of Predicate Logic? (was RE: [xml-dev ] RDF Interpretation of XML documents )
• Next by Date: RE: Architectural Forms (was Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death)
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML 2.0 and the death of XLink and XPointer?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread