Another look at namespaces

[David Brownell]

"Steven R. Newcomb" wrote:
> 
> [Murata, Makoto:]
> 
> > Just like the semistructured database, application programs should
> > never rely on schemata.  If they do, they would discriminate invalid
> > documents, which are a lot more common in the WWW.  Let' use
> > schemata only for sanity-checking.
> 
> I can only conclude that, in your world view, reliable information
> interchange is not (or should not be) the uppermost priority for the
> development of W3C standards.  I'd be astonished if the e-commerce
> community, for example, went along with that idea!

You're conflating reliable information interchange with schemas, I think.

Schemas, DTDs, and rules of all kinds are only aids to help achieve
goals ... and those goals can often be achieved without "excessive"
formalizing of those rules, as well as by use of more than one sort
of formalization (when formality is required).  What would be wrong
with completely abstracting sanity checking?  It's common practice.

I'd agree that other organizations may be better equipped to deal
with their domain-specific requirements for reliable interchange of
information.  I'd really not want to see W3C create a world of square
pegs, given the wide variety of hole shapes (triangular, elliptical,
heptagonal, etc) in use, and the fact that many problems don't fit
well into the hole/peg class of design models!  ;-)

- Dave

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)