• To: "'Chiusano Joseph'" <chiusano_joseph@b...>, Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>
• Subject: RE: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (w as: RelaxNG question)
• From: Jeff Lowery <Jeff.Lowery@c...>
• Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:47:52 -0700
• Cc: "'Xml-Dev'" <xml-dev@l...>

> 
> As with your response. ;)
> 
> Care to elaborate? (question was regarding the use of hierarchical
> URN/URLs).

I was hoping that would be elaboration enough. <g>

Okay, to be more explicit, would you really want to type (or read) something
like:

urn:us:gov:dod:don:navy:

in front of each and every element and attribute name in a hypothetical Navy
XML document? I wouldn't, although I do the equivalent in Java often enough.

I think the pertinent question is: are there enough short string sequences
for all namespace identifiers, now and in the future, that aren't so
abstract to be illegible?  In other words, could one be stuck for a
meaningful short string ns ID because all the ones they wanted to use are in
use by others?

Thanks for being persistent, anyway. Good questions, all.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (was: RelaxNG question)
    • From: Rick Marshall <rjm@z...>
  • Re: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (was: RelaxNG question)
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (was: RelaxNG question)
• Next by Date: Re: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (was: RelaxNG question)
• Previous by thread: Re: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (was: RelaxNG question)
• Next by thread: Re: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (was: RelaxNG question)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread