On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 10:28:59AM +0100, Wolfgang Mueller wrote: > On Wednesday 14 November 2001 02:24, Kurt D. Starsinic wrote: > > On Nov 13, Wolfgang Mueller wrote: > > > Hi, > > > This is a followup to the MRML top level name space discussion. > > > > > > I think that's it. Why not create a DTD top level namespace for all > > > modules that provide essentially routines for treating a DTD? We still > > > can do something special for the "bigger" DTDs like SOAP, MPEG-7 (OK, > > > that's an XML Schema) and stuff. > > > > > > What do you think? If you create DTD, I am very happy with DTD::MRML. > > > This is really less obscure than finding XML::MRML among XML::Parser etc. > > > > That could be misleading. Specific modules don't always reference a > > DTD -- they may use XMLSchema, an RFC, something informal, etc -- and > > they may have nothing to do with validation. > > As MRML where we use the DTD just for documentation purposes... (the goal is > to make use of XML's graceful degradation capacities. > > > I don't have an alternative in mind, but I like the idea of a top-level > > namespace for `specific XML implementations and applications'. I'm open to > > suggestions. > > Some more suggestions: > > XMLx, XMLApp,
I think we're risking breaking the 'names should reflect what the module does not how it does it rule'. On reflection I think a DTD, or similar, namespace is risky. I think we'd be better off *ignoring* the use of XML in the implementation (where possible) and just considering the abstract functionality the module offers when thinking about suitable names. Tim.
