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

RE: Not quite an I-D announcement

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Not quite an I-D announcement
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:06:11 -0500
• In-reply-to: <LEEOLHFCOBHIBMPBAGGCKEMAEMAA.keith@w...>

keith@w... (Keith W. Boone) writes:
>pragma() Scheme Syntax:
>  ptrpart  ::=    pragma( feature, value [, required] )
>  feature  ::=    scheme-ns-uri / feature-name
>
>where "scheme-ns-uri" is the URI used to identify the scheme that the 
>pragma

Sorry for the complete rejection, but I'm flat out unwilling to continue
the URI-poisoning that's afflicted XML since namespaces came along, and
I don't find that infinitely-extensible pattern a particularly useful
one.

URIs are not an acceptable replacement for human-readable identifiers,
and contribute mightily to the smog of arguments about complexity that
surrounds XML.  

Even apart from URI poisoning, I would much rather have three different
schemes whose names are meaningful rather than one scheme whose names
are extensible but whose usage is unclear.  In general, I much prefer
the pattern:

<givenName>Simon</givenName>

to:

<element name="givenName">Simon</element>

>From my perspective, the latter is preferable, with or without URIs. 

-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Not quite an I-D announcement
    • From: "Keith W. Boone" <keith@w...>

• References:
  • RE: Not quite an I-D announcement
    • From: "Keith W. Boone" <keith@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Not quite an I-D announcement
• Next by Date: Re: Not quite an I-D announcement
• Previous by thread: RE: Not quite an I-D announcement
• Next by thread: RE: Not quite an I-D announcement
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread