Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...> > <rant subject="namespace kvetching" frequency="every 6 months or so"> > All attempts to assign meaning to namespace names (which are URI > references) are ex post facto and irrelevant to the aims of the > namespace recommendation, which is to make names unique for > practical purposes in the Internet context. This is a useful > thing to do, and the namespace recommendation does it. That's exactly why I'm saying that http: should be removed. Too bad W3C namespaces such as : xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" are confusing people, *assigning* some meaning to the namespace names. xmlns:xsl="www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" if better, because it better reflects what *you* are saying. Who is assigning meaning to namespace names? I think it is W3C. Not me for sure. I'm suggesting to *remove* the meaning. If W3C will use xmlns:xsl="www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform" it will be clear that namespaces really have no meaning yet. I think it was even better to use www.w3.org.1999.XSL.Transform Why it is : <rant subject="namespace kvetching" frequency="every 6 months or so"> Because W3C is using URLs for namespaces, but *not* 'some unique strings with no semantics attached'. URL is *not* some unique string with no semantics attached. What was the rationale of W3C for doing that ? No answer yet. If "it should be just a unique string" why it does not *look* like just unique string, but every W3C namespace looks like a *URL* ? Why not remove http: - that will make in not a URL, but will have all the current benefits of uniqueness ? Rgds.Paul. PS. I have a strange feeling that I'm repeating myself. I apologize and will not participate in this thread any longer.
|
