A P is a P is a P

[MURATA Makoto]

Florian,

2011/12/1 Florian Reuter <flr at acm.org>:
> Hi,
> this really looks like a religious battle.
> The really funny thing is: HTML5 made all of the XHTML strict vs.
> transitional debate obsolete ;-)
> Which is really my point: I think it is a bad idea to make the same
> mistakes again by getting lost in a "standards" exercise.
> Implementations speak!
> What we really need IMHO are:* more implementers in the WG* more test
> documents* more interop tests
> I personally would argue that any modification of the spec needs to be
> accompanied by a test suite document and a clear interop scenario.

Do you defend features in MCE that have never been implemented?

Regards,
Makoto

> You said yesterday that you believe that everything which is "unclear"
> needs to be thrown out of the spec. And I understand this statement.
> However that would mean at the end to write a formal spec for a whole
> operating system, since font rendering, font substitution etc. is done
> by the OS.
> I believe that the best way to proceed is the way of the WHATWG group
> which brought us HTML5.We can learn a lot from them IMHO and that is
> --- again ---:* Implementations speak* Tests rule
> Florian
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:45 AM, MURATA Makoto
> <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> Before writing down a numbered document,  I would like to give a short
>> e-mail for sketching the battle around namespaces and schemas.
>>
>> XHTML had three subsets: strict, transitional, and frame.  Should all
>> three subsets use the same namespace?  Or, should each subset
>> has its own namespace?
>>
>> The first camp wanted to have three namespaces.  One motivation
>> is to use namespace names (i.e., URIs) as references to schemas.
>> Since each subset has its own schema, three references are needed.
>>
>> The second camp wanted to have a single namespace.  The slogan of this
>> camp was "A P is a P is a P".  In other words, an application program
>> (such as HTML editors) handles P elements in these three subsets (and
>> also preceding HTML specifications) in a very similar manner.  Proliferation
>> of namespaces simply block code reuse.
>>
>> I am sure I have missed some important points in this debate,
>> but I know that the second camp won.
>>
>> More about this battle, see
>> http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/10/names/namespaces.html
>>
>> If you have access to the W3C mailing list archive, search
>> for the phrase "A P is a P is a P".
>>
>> In the context of schema maintenance, people often raise questions
>> about changing namespaces.  When the content model of an element is
>> extended (for example, for allowing <xi:include>), should the namespace
>> be changed?
>>
>> I always say that the same namespace be used if some application
>> programs before this schema change can often successfully handle
>> documents containing the change.  A new namespace should be introduced
>> when nothing will continue to work.
>>
>> To me, namespace subsumption in MCE is useless.  It works only when
>> namespaces are renamed although old applications can continue to
>> handle new namespaces.  (Note: In the case of 29500, we do have strict
>> namespaces and transitional namespaces.  This is to intentionally
>> crash old application programs rather than receving incorrect results
>> from ISO 8601 cell values.)
>>
>> Cheers,Makoto
>>
>



-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto