[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: SV: [xri] Re: XRI Res 2 WD10
Thanks Bryan -- I was afraid that was going to be the answer ;-) I'm posting it back to the list - hope that's OK. Regarding "Basically the Lamp people using Regexe's would be doing it wrong", I would just say that probably the vast majority of websites on the internet are doing the HTML standard "wrong" in one way or another, and that this forgiving quality is what drove the universal adoption of HTML, while other much more complete and beautiful standards went by the wayside. To put it another way, the salient quality of the world wide web is that "partial implementations give partial results". (See http://www.shirky.com/writings/evolve.html -- I keep pointing people at that essay, but seriously folks, read it.) I am still asking for input on whether it would be worthwhile to recommend as a best practice that XRI authority servers format XRDs with the unprefixed implicit/default (or whatever you call that) namespace. =vg Bryan Rasmussen wrote: > Hi Victor, > I am not currently able to post to the list anymore, but I still > receive mail > so I saw your mail, a propos: > > "So my question to those of you who know more about XML than I do > (probably > everyone): is it possible to specify that the XRD namespace will be > written > in its implicit default (that is, unprefixed) format, > xmlns="xri://$xrd*($v*2.0)", so that one can expect its child elements > to be > unprefixed? Or failing that, is it worthwhile to strongly recommend > that XRI > authority servers do it that way, so that the poor LAMP people that > will > (inevitably, I assure you) be trying to parse XRDs by scraping them > with > regexes, will be able to find the elements they're looking for with > going > completely mad? " > > To so specify would go against many xml technologies, furthermore most > XML > parsers nowadays are XML Namespaces compliant parsers therefore <a > xmlns=" > http://a"> > and <a:a xmlns:a=" http://a"> will be taken as being equivalent by > those > parsers. XML Schemas do not recognize a difference between the two, > and so > on and so forth, there is just a stack of standards that would not > play with > this change... > I think for the purposes of being able to get Oasis to agree to XRI, > this > would be a breaking point for a lot of people. > > > Basically the Lamp people using Regexe's would be doing it wrong, and > I don't > think anyone would want to make the LAMP people's lives easier at the > expense > of the XML people's lives, with the XML people going crazy wondering: > "why > does my document keep failing at point X in the network?!?!" > > Cheers, > Bryan Rasmussen
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]