David Carlisle wrote:

>in general looking up namespace uris for anything is evil evil evil,
>  
>
to me something should

>however if you must do it (and sometimes it does seem an attractive
>idea) I strongly suggest that you put a rddl document at the namespace
>uri an use that to cross reference to your application data.
>That costs you something in following the indirection but you gain a lot
>in not forever blocking other uses of the namespace URI by having your
>application data sat there.
>  
>

'blocking other uses'...like what?
which is why my question....does anyone use a namespace URI for anything
other then identification?

I want to hard wire my xml namespace to a physical location...perhaps
others dont want to...

in a development vs production scenario, both dev/production XML
instance always returns the 'production' XML Namespace..to turn on
'development' I just pass an xsl:param which signals an XSLT preprocess
to remap namespace to dev instances...easy in XSLT 2.0. Dealing with
versioning is easy as its either a new HTTP URI if the XML changes
schema or not.

>A RDDL document is essentialy an XHTML document so if you go to the
>namespace uri in a web browser you get a human readable discription but
>with extra elements in the rddl namespace that allow references to
>schemas stylesheets and anything else of intereset. At least some schema
>validators (xsv for example) will correctly parse a rddl file and locate
>an xsd schema, if it happens to come accross one while following the
>"hints" on where to find a schema document.
>  
>

I have used RDDL since its inception and have found it to be a good
thing...though its an extra layer of abstraction with respect to machine
processing; REST means I dont need a formal seperate description of my
web services interface (which needs to be kept in sync).

to put things simply I use XML namespaces to avoid collision as I have
many different xml feeding into large composite documents; I identify
these namespaces using HTTP URI, if I also use HTTP URI to identify REST
services it makes life simple in XSLT to keep em the same.

>(isn't this more of an xml-dev thread than xsl-list)
>  
>

yes, which is why I wont go on... though I will ask again if anyone else
is brave enough to use HTTP URI in their XML Namespaces for anything else?

cheers, Jim