Why no namespaces - Revision history

Domenic: Add Tab's arguments

2015-02-06T03:26:59Z

Add Tab's arguments

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 Unfortunately, XML namespaces don't work so well in HTML -- in practice, the web is more like a bunch of piles than like a well-organized filing cabinet.
 Maciej Stachowiak explained some of the problems very well in
@@ Line 15: / Line 17: @@
 Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.
 </div></blockquote>
 See also: [[Namespace confusion]]
 [[Category:Justifications]]

GPHemsley: added Category:Justifications using HotCat

2013-07-09T14:33:23Z

added Category:Justifications using HotCat

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 9 July 2013
Line 17:		Line 17:

	See also: [[Namespace confusion]]		See also: [[Namespace confusion]]

			[[Category:Justifications]]

Ms2ger: moved WhyNoNameSpaces to Why no namespaces: WhyNoSpaces?

2009-10-18T10:37:50Z

moved WhyNoNameSpaces to Why no namespaces: WhyNoSpaces?

← Older revision	Revision as of 10:37, 18 October 2009
(No difference)

Ms2ger: Blockquote

2009-10-18T10:16:13Z

Blockquote

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:16, 18 October 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:
	An unfairly short summary is that:		An unfairly short summary is that:

	: Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.		<blockquote><div>
			Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.

	: Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.		Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.
			</div></blockquote>

	See also: [[Namespace confusion]]		See also: [[Namespace confusion]]

Annevk at 17:23, 15 September 2009

2009-09-15T17:23:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:23, 15 September 2009
Line 10:		Line 10:
	An unfairly short summary is that:		An unfairly short summary is that:

			: Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.

	~~Short~~ names ~~like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK~~, ~~if they~~ are ~~treated as globally unique. But by definition~~, ~~they aren't globally unique~~, and ~~they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria~~-*), but the ~~general XML solution is to~~ use ~~a URL~~.		: Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.

	~~Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.~~		See also: [[Namespace confusion]]

JimJJewett: trying to get list right

2009-09-14T18:52:20Z

trying to get list right

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 14 September 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0919.html		http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0919.html

	An unfairly short summary is that		An unfairly short summary is that:


	+ Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.		Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.

	+ Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.		Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.

JimJJewett: cleaned up

2009-09-14T18:50:00Z

cleaned up

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 14 September 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	In most of computer science, namespaces are a wonderful invention~~, that~~ greatly simplify maintenance.		In most of computer science, namespaces are a wonderful invention and greatly simplify maintenance.

	XML namespaces were intended to provide these advantages to markup languages, and they have had some success within XML, perhaps because its draconian error-handling encourages careful use.		XML namespaces were intended to provide these advantages to markup languages, and they have had some success within XML, perhaps because its draconian error-handling encourages careful use.
Line 11:		Line 11:


	~~(a)~~ Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.		+ Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.

	~~(b)~~ Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.		+ Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.

JimJJewett: created page

2009-09-14T18:48:51Z

created page

New page

In most of computer science, namespaces are a wonderful invention, that greatly simplify maintenance.

XML namespaces were intended to provide these advantages to markup languages, and they have had some success within XML, perhaps because its draconian error-handling encourages careful use.

Unfortunately, XML namespaces don't work so well in HTML -- in practice, the web is more like a bunch of piles than like a well-organized filing cabinet.

Maciej Stachowiak explained some of the problems very well in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Jul/0919.html

An unfairly short summary is that

(a) Short names like "rdf:" or "foaf:" often work OK, if they are treated as globally unique. But by definition, they aren't globally unique, and they really can't be. In some cases, HTML has opted to define prefixes itself (such as aria-*), but the general XML solution is to use a URL.

(b) Long namespace names, including URLS, are a pain to type, make the code unreadable, and are magnets for cut-and-paste editing which sometimes ends up invalidating the use anyhow.