On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 01:33:48PM +0200, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Monday 08 July 2002 12:48, Tim Bunce wrote: > > > On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Robin Berjon wrote: > > > > Applications of XML often tend to go directly under the XML:: > > > > namespace. > > > > Be careful here... The XML namespace should be reserved for modules > > where manipulating XML is the primary purpose. *Applications of XML* > > to a specific problem (like Job Control :) should *not* go into the > > XML namespace. Of course, that distinction can be a fine one sometimes. > > What I meant (unfortunately not very clearly) but "applications" are > vocabularies used as such. That is, things like SVG, XHTML, XSLT, etc where > the fact that they are XML is an integral part of the technology. Obviously, > something that just happens to use XML doesn't fit there :)
I think XML 'vocabularies' should probably have their own namespace as well if they're anything more than trivial, and certainly if they're likely to sprout extra modules over time. > > Given those points, and that the Text Encoding Initiative is a "big > > thing" ("adopted by libraries and electronic document centers") > > I'd go with a new top-level namespace: TEI. > > Part of what motivated my answer was that "TEILite" didn't seem appropriate > as it is itself a subsection of TEI. What would you think of TEI::Lite then? Fine by me. Tim.