Another errata?

[Don Park]

>The namespace spec gets more over-interpretation than any document this
>side of the Old Testament.  It seems simple to me.


I beg to differ.  The namespace spec is short and hard to read, difficult to
understand, and leaves the reader with many unanswered questions.  Answers
might have been in the spec in the form of some carefully chosen sequence of
words but they were not apparent.  It is also lumpy in terms of information
density which has similar effect as being questioned by Colombo: easy
sentences mixed with hard logic ambushes.

Considering that namespaces affect most XML developers, this is truely
unfortunate.  If the spec seems simple to you, that is because you are one
of the authors.  My evidence for its failure to satisfy the readers is in
the very confusions and over-interpretations you have noted.

Like the majority of the XML developers, I have tremendous respect for the
work you have done, especially the XML spec.  I do hope you will consider
what can be done to remedy the situation rather than trying to defend the
namespace spec.  Perhaps the Annotated Namespaces in XML will do the job if
it fully discusses the implications and applications of namespaces.  Perhaps
not.  We, the slaves of the standard specs which seemingly breeds like
rabbits, have very little control over these matters without getting pissed
off as a whole.  We are at your mercy.  Help us if you can.

Best,

Don Park
Docuverse



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)