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

RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1

• To: 'Dare Obasanjo' <kpako@y...>, 'Marcus Carr' <mcarr@a...>
• Subject: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 10:31:23 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

Because as Marcus points out, the history of web 
specifications and implementations is that 
people say one thing and do another.  RDDL and the 
use of RDF in RDDL will be a shining example. You 
are trying to use logic to overcome experience. 
It doesn't work that way.

Public IDs can be URIs and that satisfied the 
requirement for web-independence.  On the other 
hand, TimBL to Paul Prescod:

">The other is
> magical urn: URIs used primarily for XML namespaces. If something like
> RDDL ever gets deployed and becomes useful, people who use those
> non-resolvable URIs will wish they had just used http: URIs.

Agreed!

> We aren't
> at that point yet, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. (by the way, I
> was historically a big booster of urn: style URIs for namespaces)

Welcome back out of the cold!    ;-)"

So who do we believe?  Namespaces should not be core.  That doesn't 
say at all that they shouldn't be implemented; just not required.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Dare Obasanjo [mailto:kpako@y...]

How does using namespaces imply that XML usage will be "web only"? Namespaces
are simply a dissambiguating mechanism, the fact that many people confuse
issues by using HTTP URLs for namespace URIs does not have anything to with
XML being "web only" as you put it.

Please expand on this point.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
    • From: "Dare Obasanjo" <kpako@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by Date: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Previous by thread: RE: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Next by thread: Re: WD for Namespaces 1.1
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread