Article:		XML Namespaces Don't Need URIs
Subject:		Misdirected complaints
Date:		2005-04-23 17:21:07
From:		afettes
Hi Mike, Three points: 1. In the past I have found it very useful to copy/paste that annoying URI into my web browser. A thoughtful developer/organisation will put up information regarding their specification at that location. This is very useful symantic information. Removing the URI removes this potential. This was presented by Tim Bray at a talk a couple of years ago in Vancouver (http://www.vanx.org) as "good practice"; I whole heartedly agree with this statement. 2. I do believe that you are misdirecting your criticism. If you feel that certain URIs are long and hard to remember, maybe you should direct this complaint at the organization that created that URI? As an XML language author you have full control on exactly what your URI will look like. Not every XML document conforms to a W3C specification... 3. Your point about the W3C not releasing a second specification of a particular language is moot. SVG 1.2 is currently in the works. In this case, both languages will have a root element of <svg/>. However, there will be large additions to the language from SVG 1.1 to SVG 1.2. Technologies such as sXBL will have significant ramifications as to how SVG viewers will interpret the graphic. Cheers, Alastair

Previous Message

Next Message

• Misdirected complaints
  2005-04-23 19:54:03 mikeday [Reply]
  
  Hi Alastair,

  
  Your first point about the documentation aspects of namespace URIs is reasonable, but I am not sure that it outweighs the inconvenience of namespace URIs. I think that Google is a more convenient method of finding documentation, myself.

  
  It is true that the examples I criticised were all from the W3C, as those namespace URIs are more widely known and used. However, the problems are not specific to the W3C's choice of URIs. The choice of URIs as a syntax and the emphasis on globally unique names is the problem.

  
  The point about SVG actually reinforces what I was saying: the new version of SVG still uses the same namespace as the old version, as the semantics of most elements has not changed. It would be odd indeed for the W3C to create a new XML language called "SVG" with entirely different semantics to the existing one. That would justify, or in fact require, a new namespace, but no one would ever do something so confusing. (Um, the example of RSS proliferation might prove me wrong here :)