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

Re: XML Namespaces 1.1

• From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
• To: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>
• Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:05:17 -0400

On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 22:34 -0400, Rick Yorgason wrote:

> * If a prefix doesn't match a declared xmlns (formerly ill-formed) it 
> shall be shorthand for including an xmlns="prefix" attribute.
> * Namespaces should be in reversed DNS form.
> 
> With those two changes, namespaces are no longer awkward to use, no 
> longer difficult to teach, and the cost of adoption for existing 
> libraries is approximately three lines of code. 

No longer awkward - for some uses, and they become 100% totally
completely broken for other uses.  Win some, lose some.

>  So what do we have to 
> do to get a new "Namespaces in XML" standard published with these 
> minimal changes?
(1) get consensus that the broken cases don't matter (e.g. the people
who dereference a namespace URI to get a GRDDL file to find a Schema)
(2) change all existing XML systems to accept your new usage instead of
raising an error. This includes...

[1] buy everyone a new television
[2] buy everyone a new VCR (TVs and VCRs use uPNP in XML to find each
other)
[3] replace everyone's mobile phone
[4] replace iPods
[5] re-engineer air traffic control systems, aircraft navigation...
[6] replace people's washing machines, and other XML-communicating
appliances
[7] change all Web Services
[8] replace all Microsoft Windows, Gnome, KDE, OS X, desktops
[9] car components (brakes, tyres, engines,...) communicate with XML...
[9] (many more examples)

This is why XML does not in fact get changed very much...

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>

• References:
  • XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>