Re: Matching namespaces - one works, one doesn't ?

On 29/11/2007, G. Ken Holman <gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> If I may cite where making this distinction is very important:
> standards development.  I'm working on code-list-related
> specifications and the namespace distinction of foreign namespaces is
> critically important to validate those standardized constructs with
> adopted community-wide semantics, while distinguishing embedded
> documentation constructs that are important to individual users.
>
> If one user chooses XHTML to document their XML code list
> representation and another user chooses DocBook and yet another user
> uses DITA, all three users can agree on the community-standard
> structural constraints of the standardized vocabulary without having
> their respective vocabularies interfere.

Sounds fine (if I've read that correctly... it's a bit difficult to
parse on the first go) but you could just use the hierarchical nature
of XML to signify what's what (wrap each type in an element), if for
example there were two types that weren't in a namespace.

> I feel namespaces are unjustly given a bad rap and that they play a
> critically-important role in information design.

Really - critically important?

> I agree with you Andrew that using a globally-unique naming
> convention for a closed vocabulary (as in one used by a closed
> community of users where everything is mandated under central
> control) can be overkill, but I see no harm and only benefit in
> distinguishing using namespaces the documentary constructs
> unimportant to the semantics of the information being acted on.

Sorry Ken - parse failure on that whopper of a sentence!  I think I
get the semantics even if the syntax causes problems... :)

I've never come across the aggregation of multiple XML sources where
I've thought "good job they are in different namespaces otherwise I'd
be stuck here"... but I have come across many single XML documents
with several namespaces which do nothing more than make processing
that XML needlessly more complicated.


cheers
-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/