Namespaces

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

Are we happy with including namespaces in the drafts of the
TAML schema? It could mean we end up with lots of draft
namespaces which could confuse. Should we use a different
format for our draft schema namespaces?

Also, are we happy including a date in the final namespace?
Some object to doing  this, though it does, I think, comply
with OASIS guidelines and precedent.

There is a related issue of the need to include perhaps even
at this early stage a version strategy for our markup. Will
we rely on namespace changes? Will we keep the same
namespace for minor changes (those which are backward
compatible with the previous schema) and maybe add a
version attribute to the top level element? Will we also
include some kind of 'extension point' (typically an 'xs:any'
element somewhere in the XML structure) to allow us to
add future new elements without breaking compatibility
with our current version? The same could be used to add
custom elements by others if we wanted to allow this - or
we could might think of having two extension points, one
for our use (if we keep the same namespace in future
minor versions) and one for other, custom, namespaces.
---
Stephen D Green