Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:bill.dehora@p...] > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:12 PM > To: Dare Obasanjo > Cc: Bill de hÓra; Simon St.Laurent; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: namespaces (was RE: rss > regularis(z)ation) > > > > http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnxml/html/understxml.asp > > > Well, you lost me, or maybe I lost you. The mention at all of > XML Namespaces has to do with extensibility: > > 'XML is Extensible' The article doesn't mention extensibility and namespaces in the same breath. In fact the word namespace appears only once in the article and it is when I mention that the XML Infoset has namespace information items. > Surely you understand XML. It's not extensible, it's a fixed > grammar. I though first you were trying to say: > > 'XML is Extensible with XML Namespaces' > > but 1) that's not XML anymore, 2) whatever it is, it is still > not extensible since it's still a fixed grammar. I claimed > this yesterday, feel free to refute, or handwave. I suspect > you're trying to say: > > 'XML vocabularies are Extensible with XML Namespaces' Nope, I was trying to say 'XML vocabularies are extensible' Namespaces help in this but are not the be all and end all of the extensibility story of XML vocabularies. > but, 3) that's not about XML anymore, that's about > vocabualaries (or content models), 4) XML Namespaces don't > make vocabularies extensible they just allow the them to be > partitioned. Partitioning is important if multiple parties will be extending your vocabulary. Just look at RSS for examples of where this partitioning has proved useful. -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM Any given program, when running, is obsolete. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|
