OT Re: [XML-SIG] XBEL / Call for extension

Frans Englich frans.englich at telia.com
Fri Jan 28 21:26:59 CET 2005

On Friday 28 January 2005 20:09, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 16:50 +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> > This is my opinion.
> >
> > If I were to design XBEL from the ground up I would have put it in a
> > namespace. Doing it at this point would be done in the name of somekind
> > of "XML-correctness". While it itches to suggest it, I don't think it
> > justifies all the compatibility havoc it creates.
> Namespaces don't really have anything to do with XML correctness.

What do you mean by "XML correctness"? :)

>  I
> think this is a popular misconception.  Namespaces are meant to solve a
> particular problem in XML.  Many argue it makes a hash of the solution
> (I'm somewhat in the middle), but I think everyone would agree that if
> you don't have the problem, there is no need to complicate things by
> using namespaces.

I stay neutral, but have a question: in what situation should namespaces then 
be used? E.g, why is XHTML in a namespaces? Because it may be combined with 
other vocabularies? Any other reason?



More information about the XML-SIG mailing list