[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
The point is not pessimistic; it is conservative. It is based on prior experience with the W3C specification process. Namespaces are a good example. First, they were just name disambiguators, hidden system properties, then schema references, making them part of the content. We seem to stay on the slippery slope of minimalism and incomplete design guidelines. That makes these processes unreliable. So experience says, don't believe or trust; specify, verify, and hold to the original agreement until a case is made for change which adds value, not simply specification compression. Given that namespaces are supported as currently defined in current specifications, and that changing that suggests to reasonable people that DTDs must be discarded, put into a separate spec, or redesigned, then the impact of leaving the design as is is less than the minimal change suggested. One might ask, which would have the most effect, keeping Namespaces in the current rec or degrading the use of DTDs? My guess is that if we include more than the XML-Devers and the minorities of the TAG and the W3C WGs, we may get a vote for no change. Not everyone wants them or needs them. Those that do have them now. Why put them in core? That is the value added I'm waiting to hear about. Otherwise, do what Tobin suggests and simply make the changes which are not controversial in the two specifications. I'd love what Joe suggests: give us back the power of SGML DTDs if there is to be some kind of redesign. But if we are really headed down that path, I'd prefer to see what DSDL comes up with. There is considerable experience backing that up and reliable standards processes. We should leave room for different organizations to standardize and specify Internet systems. The Web Is Not The Internet. The Web is as Paul argues, RESTful. The Internet is not. I am more convinced everyday that we need to accept and potentially embrace a world in which "information space" is processed by multiple and even competing systems yet unifiable not by addressing, but by declaration. len -----Original Message----- From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:kpako@y...] I still don't see your point. It seems you are taking the most pessimistic view of things but let's walk through your scenarios anyway.
|
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
|