Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Tim Bray wrote:
>
> Yes, it's possible, but it seems crystal clear to me that a year or
> so from now, the "average XML document", were such a thing to exist,
> would have namespaces. Office 2000 is full of 'em.
I understand that but I do not think that the consumers of those documents
(whether end-users or "average programmers") will need to go back to the
XML Names specification to understand them.
> RDF is full of
> 'em. And if nothing else, old-fashioned document wrangling is, I
> predict, going to be dipping regularly into namespaces like, for
> example, HTML.
The average HTML user is not going to go to the namespaces specification
any more than they went to the SGML specification. Nor should they.
> Which is why it really is a problem that something that we tried so
> hard to make simple is being perceived (rightly or wrongly) as
> complex and intimidating. -Tim
Namespaces are intimidating for exactly the same reason that things like
XLink and architectural forms are intimidating. Namespaces are abstract.
But when you apply them to a spec, like Office 2000, or HTML, they become
simple to understand. In a particular context, they are simple.
That's why "average developers" should sit back and wait for the context
to develop.
Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for only himself
http://itrc.uwaterloo.ca/~papresco
"Remember, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did,
but she did it backwards and in high heels."
--Faith Whittlesey
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...)
|
