[dsdl-discuss] Re: DIS XML for Part 3 with disposition of

> I thought we had agreed that no namespace was needed, when we discussed this
> in Cambridge. The reason was that namespaces are used to allow
> modularity. SVRL was not developed as a format that would be a module but
> as a standalone format to help with conformance-testing of
> implementations, with the aid of some future, external test suite (which I
> am working on at the moment). A namespace is an unneccessary complication
> for a standalone language.

As I recall, I said that the whole point of standardization is allow
users to innovate and that we should not prohibit users from emmbedding
SVRL within XHTML, for example. I still believe that you agreed.

> > Since I am likely to use SVRL in a Japanese government project, I care.
> > Is it possible to fix this before publishing the DIS?
>
> If this is a Japanese requirement, we should do it!
>
> The revised XML text for the annex is attached, if we can do it at this
> stage: it involves

If this is still doable, I would much prefer this change.

> And if there is a requirement from the Japanese that every new XML
> language is in an XML Namespace, for management or SOAP enveloping
> reasons, then perhaps they might like to raise it at SC34 as a general
> policy.

I will do so next time.

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)