On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Monday 08 July 2002 12:48, Tim Bunce wrote:
> > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > > > Applications of XML often tend to go directly under the XML::
> > > > namespace.
> >
> > Be careful here... The XML namespace should be reserved for modules
> > where manipulating XML is the primary purpose. *Applications of XML*
> > to a specific problem (like Job Control :) should *not* go into the
> > XML namespace. Of course, that distinction can be a fine one sometimes.
>
> What I meant (unfortunately not very clearly) but "applications" are
> vocabularies used as such. That is, things like SVG, XHTML, XSLT, etc where
> the fact that they are XML is an integral part of the technology. Obviously,
> something that just happens to use XML doesn't fit there :)
I think the main distinction I used when thinking that it might need a top
namespace is the fact at what point in time does one consider a XML schema
a file format? I noticed that file formats like PDF, HTML, etc all have
top level namespaces based on the fact that they are file formats. If a
person were to make an abiword module would it go into XML:: or something
else since the abiword format is/can be XML based? Sorry - I can rattle
on for hours on such a subject ... it can get very fuzzy based real quick
which is a little hobby of mine. This was the original reasoning I
couldn't remember yesterday ... I think I might played to much this past
holiday weekend. :-)
> > I notice the text above says "The TEI specification is quite large"
> > (implying possibly more modules over time) and "the TEILite
> > specification that is based on XML" (implying there are non-XML
> > aspects to it).
>
> I admit to having judged this almost only on this specific module which is a
> DOM wrapper/extension in a way similar to the way in which, say, the SVG DOM,
> wraps/extends the Core DOM.
>
> > Given those points, and that the Text Encoding Initiative is a "big
> > thing" ("adopted by libraries and electronic document centers")
> > I'd go with a new top-level namespace: TEI.
>
> Part of what motivated my answer was that "TEILite" didn't seem appropriate
> as it is itself a subsection of TEI. What would you think of TEI::Lite then?
I think TEI::Lite wouldn't be a bad break down ... like I said before ...
I don't know if it will take off or not and become a super popular format,
but I always try to keep an eye on the future (while attempting to keep
one eye on the ground so I don't stuble over my own two feet).
Thanks for your input guys, I am starting to understand how the process works!
--
//========================================================\\
|| D. Hageman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ||
\\========================================================//
