Re: Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces
Joe Gregorio wrote: > Tim Bray wrote: > > Arjun Ray wrote: > > > >> We have it from unimpeachable authority that the Namespace mechanism > >> isn't > >> really for "vocabulary combination" (even though the "Motivation" section > >> of the spec would seem to suggest that it might be). Thus in > >> > >> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/01/namespaces.html > >> > >> it is written: "The only reason namespaces exist, once again, is to give > >> elements and attributes programmer-friendly names that will be unique > >> across the whole Internet." > > > > > > Don't be silly. Why would you want names that are unique on a wide > > scale if you weren't going to be combining vocabularies? I certainly agree that namespaces are useful when combining vocabularies but want to point out that namespaces are also useful for standalone vocabularies. For example RDDL allows a programmer to discover information about a vocabulary even when a document contains a single vocabulary. > > > > This brings up something I have run into several times in recent months, that > is, the idea of an "optional namespace" when defining a vocabulary. The > basic idea being that if the document is going to stand alone then no > namespace qualification is needed. If it is going to be combined or contained > in other vocablaries then the namespace is applied. .... That seems just too complicated, particularly for software that is designed to process the vocabular as either standalone or embedded. That concept has been tried and the code that I've written to deal with it is overly complicated and hence more prone to error. Namespaces link XML elements and attributes to the WWW, which in many, but admittedly not all, cases is useful. Jonathan
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format