> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 3:12 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo
> Cc: Bill de hÓra; Simon St.Laurent;
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] namespaces (was RE: [xml-dev] rss
> regularis(z)ation)
>
> >
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnxml/html/understxml.asp
>
>
> Well, you lost me, or maybe I lost you. The mention at all of
> XML Namespaces has to do with extensibility:
>
> 'XML is Extensible'
The article doesn't mention extensibility and namespaces in the same breath. In fact the word namespace appears only once in the article and it is when I mention that the XML Infoset has namespace information items.
> Surely you understand XML. It's not extensible, it's a fixed
> grammar. I though first you were trying to say:
>
> 'XML is Extensible with XML Namespaces'
>
> but 1) that's not XML anymore, 2) whatever it is, it is still
> not extensible since it's still a fixed grammar. I claimed
> this yesterday, feel free to refute, or handwave. I suspect
> you're trying to say:
>
> 'XML vocabularies are Extensible with XML Namespaces'
Nope, I was trying to say
'XML vocabularies are extensible'
Namespaces help in this but are not the be all and end all of the extensibility story of XML vocabularies.
> but, 3) that's not about XML anymore, that's about
> vocabualaries (or content models), 4) XML Namespaces don't
> make vocabularies extensible they just allow the them to be
> partitioned.
Partitioning is important if multiple parties will be extending your vocabulary. Just look at RSS for examples of where this partitioning has proved useful.
--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Any given program, when running, is obsolete.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
