Experimenting with Namespaces - DTDs?

[David Megginson]

Steven R. Newcomb writes:

 > But I would go farther: XML Namespaces are a snare and a delusion.
 > With their use of colon syntax, they lull one into thinking that
 > that are about class inheritance.  They are not.

Right: what they _are_ is a way of uniquifying and globalising names,
and I think that they will do an acceptable job of that.  The problem
comes if people try to do anything else with them (such as specifying
inheritance, embedding documents in other documents, etc.).

 > I think RDF would benefit substantially, in terms of its
 > understandability, its implementability, and its flexibility, if it
 > were described in terms of inherited architectures.  In fact, I
 > think it cries out for an architectural perspective, in which the
 > knowability and significance of element context is preserved.  I
 > suspect that RDF's formal rigor would benefit, too, even though its
 > formal rigor is already formidable.  (I'm basically impressed by
 > RDF; it's the product of much excellent thinking, I think.  I just
 > want MORE!)

Agreed: I would like to be able to include meta-data without being
forced to use the element type names that RDF chose.  XML-Link got
this one right.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 ak117 at freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins at microstar.com
      http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)