why distinctions within XHTML?

[David Megginson]

Hunter, David writes:

 > I understand the reasoning behind the XHTML group wanting three
 > versions, to mirror the three versions of HTML 4.  But I would like
 > them to start, from the very beginning, to treat XHTML as various
 > parts (modules) of *one vocabulary*.  A vocabulary that could be
 > identified by a single namespace, so that in the future, when
 > integration of XHTML and other XML vocabularies is possible, it
 > will also be easy to identify the XHTML pieces, so that they can be
 > processed by our XHTML applications.

I agree.  In fact my argument is that a Namespace URI should be like a
domain name -- it is the persistent, public face of a vocabulary.

Microsoft might restructure their Web site tomorrow, but they'll
probably still keep the microsoft.com domain name so that people can
find the new site. Imagine if you had to choose between the following:

  microsoft-strict-1-0.com
  microsoft-transitional-1-0.com
  microsoft-frameset-1-0.com

And then, after the redesign

  microsoft-1-1.com

then

  microsoft-1-2.com

then

  microsoft-2-0.com

Microsoft can change their IP address and their internal structure as
ofter as they like, but it's hard for people to find them if they
change their domain name.  Likewise, XHTML can change its
DTDs/schemas, but will be very hard for deployed software to recognize
XHTML if it keeps changing its Namespace URI.


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)