Comments on: Unobtrusive Namespaces http://www.barefootliam.org/xml/20091111-unobtrusive-namespaces Don't hurt your feet on the pointy brackets! Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:08:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: barefootliam http://www.barefootliam.org/xml/20091111-unobtrusive-namespaces/comment-page-1#comment-29 barefootliam Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:08:21 +0000 http://www.barefootliam.org/?p=31#comment-29 Actually I was harsher on DSRL in my post than I intended to be. The non-starter part is that I think it's important that the replacement for explicit namespace syntax for HTML 5 does not itself need an understanding of explicit namespace syntax to use it, so the file "defining" a namespace needs to be "colon-free" so to speak. But there's no reason, at least in principle, that DSRL couldn't be made colon-free in at least some usages. Last I saw, it was a draft. Obviously there would also need to be royalty-free patent commitments and also a zero-dollar version of the spec available under something like a W3C copyright. But DSRL does have some features that would be useful, such as (obviously) the renaming. Thanks for commenting! [WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us '0 which is not a hashcash value. Actually I was harsher on DSRL in my post than I intended to be. The non-starter part is that I think it’s important that the replacement for explicit namespace syntax for HTML 5 does not itself need an understanding of explicit namespace syntax to use it, so the file “defining” a namespace needs to be “colon-free” so to speak. But there’s no reason, at least in principle, that DSRL couldn’t be made colon-free in at least some usages. Last I saw, it was a draft.

Obviously there would also need to be royalty-free patent commitments and also a zero-dollar version of the spec available under something like a W3C copyright. But DSRL does have some features that would be useful, such as (obviously) the renaming.

Thanks for commenting!

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ’0 which is not a hashcash value.

]]> By: Rick Jelliffe http://www.barefootliam.org/xml/20091111-unobtrusive-namespaces/comment-page-1#comment-28 Rick Jelliffe Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:48:46 +0000 http://www.barefootliam.org/?p=31#comment-28 What was the reason for not allowing DSRL? If they cannot understand namespaces enough to make a DSRL schema, why would they understand enough XML to put in your format? Wouldn't they be more likely just to not make any formal definition, but at most state a namespace in the text of a spec. In which case, making up a namespace declaration would be done by someone competent and interested in XML, who would understand namespaces. In which case DSRL would be OK. What was the reason for not allowing DSRL?

If they cannot understand namespaces enough to make a DSRL schema, why would they understand enough XML to put in your format?

Wouldn’t they be more likely just to not make any formal definition, but at most state a namespace in the text of a spec. In which case, making up a namespace declaration would be done by someone competent and interested in XML, who would understand namespaces. In which case DSRL would be OK.

]]>