OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

tm-pubsubj-comment message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE ? Look at XML Namespaces


Title: RE: [tm-pubsubj-comment] ISSUE ? Look at XML Namespaces

Lars Marius Garshol:
> This is fine, except that you are using the wrong namespace URI. XTM
> has a namespace URI. If you'd used that the above would have imported
> just fine into the OKS.

As far as I understood, the final persistent namespace URI has not been settled yet. Did I miss something?

> As far as I can tell, this boils down to a proposal that we extend the
> syntax of XTM so that you can use namespace prefixes to abbreviate
> URIs in xlink:href attributes in XTM documents. We could do that, of
> course, but what would be the point? It would just be an abbreviation
> mechanism, and there are actually some serious problems with it.

You're right. This is not the most important issue. But it would demonstrate that we are aware of what XML namespaces mean.

> | me:
> | The xmlns working draft also discusses "The Internal Structure of
> | XML Namespaces". This reads quite interesting, but it is not
> | applicable for PSI doc, IMO. For xmlns, the internal structure is
> | XML schema. For PSI, the internal structure is PSI doc, still to be
> | defined.
>
> This sounds as though you are thinking that we will make an XML
> vocabulary for PSDs. So far the consensus has been that we don't need
> to, as HTML, XTM, and RDF/XML are already out there and fully able to
> do what we want to do.

If we want a parser to process PSI just like XML namespaces this won't work.
W3C does not insist on *any* retrievable document behind a namespace URI, but if there is, this must be XML schema.

> | This would make it easy to use existing code sets that are not
> | formally PSI docs, like ISBN: or IATA: and many others.
>
> How? ISBNs already have a URN scheme, so they don't need any help from
> us. As far as I know there is no IATA URN scheme (though I could be
> wrong), and I don't see how using XML namespaces would solve anything
> with respect to these code sets. Could you explain?

right again - we really don't have to do anything for ISBN. Isn't this great?
I am not sure about IATA. But all of these huge organisations don't have to provide anything but a namespace name, as the identifiers already exist and are well defined.

Thomas



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC