[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] FW: Namespace management
Matt, I think I touched a few live wires here! Yes - I intended to make people stop and re-assess their thinking. But we're not talking about the same two things. From what I've seen of your use of namespaces - you you them in an appropriate programmer-centric way that delimits special purposed markup "families" within a overall block of markup - (e.g. XQuery instructions enbedded into content) and yes - writing code to handle that is not tough. What I've seen elsewhere is the opposite arena - where non-technical users believe that the only way to make their markup functional is if they assign prefixes to everything. This is obviously a recipe for chaos - and in the US Gov XML WGs meetings I've sat in - and where these requests for namespace management are coming from - that is what I see is part of the perception - that each department within the USGov will own its own prefixes and use these to label its own content. This IMHO will significantly impede interoperability and deployment of agile information. Worse - if we institutionalize this - then we will be making this whole mindset part of the culture of "how" XML is done. Premise #1 in my book is that the LESS markup goes into the exchange transaction structures the better on all counts of ease of implementation, maintenance, interoperabilty and reduction of content bloat. Do not confuse semantics with content. Keep the two separate as much as possible. Now also look at some other down sides - if people think they can own and manage namespace prefixes, then you get into turf wars - but legally you cannot "own" such things - this is just an invitation to lawyers that I'd rather avoid - especially if this crosses over from the government arena to the "wild". OK - nows lets look at the POSITIVES here. I reckon that if we accept the following premises: 1) Namespaces used to denote special purpose markup is an essential and needed mechanism, such uses are driven off the URI - not the prefix! 2) Discovery of namespace usage as int 1). 3) Prefix-centric namespace thinking geared around making names "unique" within a XML transaction does not adequately solve eBusiness needs - particularly not versioning of items, and not context driven content. 4) People want to own prefixes and have the registry manage and enforce content submission rules for them. So - looking at items 1) & 2) - the Registry can ALREADY handle these very nicely - if you just want to catalogue these - so you know that someone already has a toolset to handle XQuery say - and you want to query on a URI - find the owner - description - purpose, etc, we can do that by having yet-another extrinsic type within Registry as a non-normative addendum. Items 3) and 4) I think we do want to wave a red flag and point out to people that they need to re-think their understanding of their use cases. OK - I stand guilt of trying to drive a CAM shaped nail into every problem I see at the moment ; -) Please understand that I'm striving to make CAM leverage the XML toolset world - NOT replace it! Especially I see that the role of ebXML generally is to encourage best-practices and a clear ROI roadmap for ebusiness - and so we should be making it easier for end users to adopt and use XML -and also ensuring that there are not ugly ramifications longterm. Hope this now makes a lot more sense - and clarifies the issues here. Thanks, DW. ==================================================== Message text written by Matthew MacKenzie > David, See inline. I see you are flogging the CAM-redefines-XML-namespace-and-XML-Schema idea. :-) >I stressed the above to show how this is different. I guess I >never bought into the premise from the W3C that >you HAD to have a unique prefix on your XML, else >it would not "work". I find this flawed, and further more >users react badly when asked to add prefixes to tags, >and mapping software reacts even worse when asked >to manage and move content so labelled. > Whoa! Are we debating the use of namespaces here? We were discussing a "registry of namespaces", and certainly not a registry of namespace prefixes, and even more certainly we were not discussing the apropriateness of XML namespaces. The idea that every bit of XML is a member of a namespace is A Good Thing. And if "mapping" software has a problem dealing with properly namespaced XML, perhaps those mapping software vendors ought to make use of one of the 15+ open source XML parsers, that can handle namespaces. Hell, a few years ago I wrote a XML parser using regular expressions that dealt with namespaces. Its not hard. I'd like to know why you think namespaces are flawed. < ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]