Re: XSLT namespace (Was: Dumb question...)

[David_Marston at lotus dot com]

Dan Morrison (dman@es.co.nz) wrote
[regarding the xslt namespace declaration]:
>So although it LOOKS like a URI, it's all bogus.
>That string might as well say "XSLT 1.0"
>...
>Does the group think this is actually the way things will move, or was
>this 'URI as a syntax definition' just a quick hack?

I think that there is a worthwhile middle-ground view,
even if resolving through the URI is never implemented.
First of all, keep in mind that we can expect to see many namespaces
co-existing in XSLT stylesheets as they will be used in real-world
e-business(TM) applications. For each namespace, you will have the
question (in colloquial English) "Says who?" that applies to the
namespace. For example, when my stylesheet processes an element
called "auction:bid", I need to know whether that "auction"
prefix is as defined by eBay, steelbrokers.com, or any of dozens
of other companies and consortia that may define a set of tags
relating to auctions. If I could say something equivalent to
your suggested "XSLT 1.0" declaration, that would mean that all
those organizations had agreed on a single vocabulary, or at
least that they had agreed on a set of disambiguated names that
would apply to the different variations on the auction tag-set.

By requiring a URI, we are imposing a practical amount of
discipline, yet tapping into a naming scheme (domain names)
that is already disambiguated across the whole world. If we
try to just put in the name of the standard, then we just put
the "Says who?" question at one level of indirection, rather
than truly resolving it. Each domain name owner (like w3c.org)
is still responsible for associating individual URIs with
individual namespaces, so that the rest of us can use those
URIs in exchanging data.
.................David Marston
                 David_Marston@lotus.com


 XSL-List info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list