[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Statement from HTML WG
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 18:14:14 +0200 (MET DST) Message-Id: <UTC199909171614.SAA00910.steven@s...> From: Steven Pemberton <Steven.Pemberton@c...> To: ann@h... Subject: XML-DEV X-UIDL: 918589418 Status: U Ann, I tried to send this to xml-dev, but apparently I can't if I'm not subscribed. Could you please post it there for me? Thanks! Steven >From steven Thu Sep 16 15:02:06 1999 Date: Thu, 16 Sep 99 15:02:06 MET DST From: Steven Pemberton <steven@c...> To: xml-dev@i... Cc: w3c-html-wg@w... Subject: XHTML: One Namespace or Three? (I don't know if I can post to this list, since I'm not subscribed) I've been told that an opinion has been voiced in this group that there is a conspiracy within the HTML Working group with regards three namespaces, or that we are somehow working in secrecy. That is not the case, but unfortunately xml-dev isn't one of our standard communication channels. To try and explain how the HTML WG came to the decision it did, I enclose a document below that outlines the process we went through. You'll see that we did approach the XML community on the issue (via the xml-plenary list), and there was not a single answer from the community. I hope this document helps. As I said, I'm not subscribed to this group, though members of the WG are, who keep me in touch with what is being said. I already receive more email per day than I can read in a day, so please be understanding about any sluggishness in replies if you email me directly. Best wishes, Steven Pemberton Chair, W3C HTML WG XHTML: One Namespace or Three? Steven Pemberton This document discusses the reasoning behind why the XHTML 1.0 PR [http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/] uses three namespaces. Executive summary: Namespaces are used by software to distinguish what is contained in a piece of markup. There are use-cases to support both a single-namespace solution and a three-namespace solution: some software cares which version of XHTML is being used, and some doesn't. Three namespaces makes life harder for software that doesn't care, but allows software that does care to do its work. A single namespace makes life easier for software that doesn't care, but prevents software that does care from doing its job. If the XML community says that the use cases that support three namespaces are not important, the HTML WG are willing change their mind. What are Namespaces In the short introductory section on motivation in The Namespace recommendation [http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/] it is said: [Documents] containing multiple markup vocabularies, pose problems of recognition and collision. Software modules need to be able to recognize the tags and attributes which they are designed to process, even in the face of "collisions" occurring when markup intended for some other software package uses the same element type or attribute name. The only definition of a namespace the recommendation gives is: [Definition:] An XML namespace is a collection of names, identified by a URI reference [RFC2396], which are used in XML documents as element types and attribute names. So, according to the Namespace recommendation, Namespaces are used to disambiguate different vocabularies, without saying where those vocabularies come from. In other words, it is up to the designer of the namespace itself to specify what the vocabulary is. History In the first public draft for XHTML 1.0 [http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/WD-html-in-xml-19981205/], we used three namespaces, since we foresaw use-cases that made distinguishing the three different vocabularies useful (see below). After publishing the draft we received two comments (though without technical argumentation) saying that there should only be one namespace. Assuming we had misunderstood how namespaces were intended to work, as a response to this we went to one namespace. To this we got further (verbal) comments, with technical reasoning, that it should really be three after all. Since this was the majority of the group's feeling as well, we went back to our original decision, though this time using hierarchically structured namespaces, in an attempt to address both groups. Since we were getting different messages from the XML Community, we also asked the XML Plenary group to discuss the issue. This (long) discussion starts at [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-plenary/1999Jul/0017.html]. (See the end of this document for some selections.) The result of these discussions seems to show that there isn't consensus on the issue, with people arguing quite strongly for both positions. Using Namespaces The only place where the distinction between using one namespace and using three is important is when including fragments of xhtml in another document. You can include a namespace at the top of a document, but there are other mechanisms available at that point for distinguishing the markup used, for the namespace not to be important. However, in a fragment such as the following: <notes> <p xmlns='http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/strict'> This is also available <a href="http://www.w3.org/">online</a>. </p> </notes> the namespace is the only mechanism available for identifying the vocabulary intended. As has been shown in the xml plenary mailing list, there are use-cases for both alternatives; in other words there are processors that don't care exactly which xhtml vocabulary is being used, and whose life is easier if it only has to look for one namespace, and there are processors that do care, and want to be able to distinguish. (You can liken this to English-language processors: hyphenation algorithms don't need to know if you are using American English or British English; spelling checkers do). So in the light of valid use-cases for both positions, the different use-cases need to be evaluated to see which solution is preferable. The HTML WG opted for three namespaces on the grounds that one namespace makes one of the classes of use-case impossible, whereas three namespaces allows both, only making one of the classes harder to do. (Please note that this is independent of whether the Namespace URI be used to refer to a Schema of some sort; there are those who argue that different Schemas imply different Namespaces, and therefore XHTML should have three namespaces; the HTML WG does not have an official position on that issue). However, the HTML WG is not bound irrevocably to three namespaces. We want XHTML to be a good XML citizen, and if the consensus of the XML community is that the 3-namespace use-cases are not important and can reasonably be ignored, we are willing to go with that consensus. Steven Pemberton, Chair, W3C HTML WG --- Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials Coming in September --- Mastering XML Founder, WebGeek Communications http://www.webgeek.com Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org Director, HWG Online Education http://www.hwg.org/services/classes xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
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
|