|
Hi Mike,
Here are my rebuttals:
1. Truth does not always lie in Google. What happens if that google bot has not cached the required document? What about if the document is in a intranet that is not open to the famed google bot? The company I work for is massive and may define a large number of XML documents, each with a local *intranet* defined URI describing the schema.
2. I'm not sure why having globally unique names is a bad thing? I feel it is a great thing. It could be deemed similar to DNS or a tangible housing addresses (postal code, etc). Once again to that intranet defined language. Say my languages are defined as follows:
"http://language1.mydomain.com/v1"
"http://language2.mydomain.com/v5"
These do not seem so complicated. They are descriptive, locally accessible though not google-able, and easy to use and remember.
3. True that the syntax for many elements have not changed. However, some have. A perfect example is the text element. In SVG 1.2 the text element has an attribute editable. If this is set to true, then the user can edit the text as in a text input box. This is not available in SVG 1.1. Therefore if the SVG is labelled as SVG 1.1 then there is no text editing capabilities and thus must be treated differently from SVG 1.2. This distinct difference requires some method of specifying exactly which version the source document is written in. Hence the use of a namespace (with the same prefix of course as it is still SVG).
I feel that a good contribution that your article could have made would be of forming a standard way of addressing URIs in namespaces. Similar to coding standards in C++ or Java. Show a best practices. I would find that very useful.
Cheers,
Alastair
|
Previous Message
Up
