Article:		XML Namespaces Don't Need URIs
Subject:		Misdirected complaints
Date:		2005-04-23 19:54:03
From:		mikeday
Response to: Misdirected complaints
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 :)

Previous Message

Up

Next Message

• Misdirected complaints
  2005-05-09 09:06:08 afettes