On 7/23/06 5:22 PM, "Karl Dubost" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guillaume, > > Le 22 juil. 06 à 08:35, Guillaume Lebleu a écrit : >> why the approach has evolved to become the following "class >> attribute-approach": > [...] >> instead of the following mixed-namespace approach: > [...] >> Both approaches work fine in a browser (firefox at least), and both >> approaches could be generated from the same XML. But having an XML >> background I see that the second approach has the following >> advantages: > > It depends on the Web community you are talking to and then the type > of applications and tools. In the paradigm of Web authors and Web > designers, the Web community has a better understanding of class > names because they are used to it. All of this is certainly true. > In some other Web communities, it will be the opposite, people will > have a better grip on XML namespaces, and schemas. With all due respect, there is very little intersection between the people that have a better understanding of XML namespaces and schemas, and actual use of that understanding to publish *content* with XML namespaces and schemas on *the Web*. There's tons of usage with proprietary APIs, and tons behind the firewall with proprietary one-off custom apps, but nearly none (certainly in comparison to HTML publishing) in terms of *content* publishing on the public *Web*. That's the difference in this community. The focus on *content* on the *public* *Web*. > So it's really a question of community of practices. The more > important is to find bridges when it's possible. I actually disagree with this quite strongly. In short "building bridges" is code for neo-political-correctness that socially appeals to many, but has nothing to do with science and the scientific method. To put it another way: Why is it important to build bridges to failures? In science, when a theory fails and is discredited, scientists don't talk about "building bridges" between failed theories and working theories. Rather, the evolution of science *depends* on rigorously refuting and putting to rest bad ideas. Not building bridges to them. > The rest turns > always in religious debates, which are pointless. Which is why they are off-topic in this forum. We're here to get real and get things done. Not argue about theoretical problems. Thanks, Tantek _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
