If the namespace doesn't matter -- and I tend to agree -- then why not
make the namespace we define our elements in be simply
"http://osafoundation.org/namespace"; and let 3rd parties use their own
namespace?
Lisa
On May 10, 2005, at 7:35 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 06:04 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
Third-party parcels shouldn't be in a namespace beginning with
"http://osafoundation.org/";. There are few rules and conventions
about what goes into namespaces but that's one of them -- only the
organization responsible for the domain in the URI (if there is a
domain part) should create a new namespace with that domain or new
elements in such a namespace, or that organization must coordinate
the creation of namespaces or elements in those namespaces. Since
namespaces exist to disambiguate XML names (QNames) and avoid
collisions, making people re-use a namespace we've already defined
weakens that at least conceptually.
Then maybe we shouldn't be using XML namespaces. :)
Seriously though, please note that the current parcel loader
implementation doesn't support getting its uniqueness from the XML
namespace anyway. If you have two parcels whose directory paths begin
with "myparcel", the existing implementation will barf anyway, because
it will try to give them the same repository path. This issue is
similar to the Python uniqueness requirement (see below), but is
independent since it can effect even parcels without any Python code
whatsoever.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
