On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:33:48PM +0200, 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 XML 'vocabularies' should probably have their own namespace
as well if they're anything more than trivial, and certainly if
they're likely to sprout extra modules over time.
> > 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?
Fine by me.
Tim.
