namespaces-considered-harmful: Difference between revisions
m (removed broken links) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
* [http://microformats.org/blog/2006/01/09/tim-bray-on-creating-xml-dialects/ Tim Bray on creating XML dialects] | * [http://microformats.org/blog/2006/01/09/tim-bray-on-creating-xml-dialects/ Tim Bray on creating XML dialects] | ||
On the other hand, XHTML | On the other hand, XHTML [[semantic-class-names]] has seen widespread adoption among the web authoring/design/IA/publishing community. Microformats is leveraging the approach that is both working better and frankly dominating in practice on the Web. | ||
Namespaces are actually a *huge* negative. Search for: | Namespaces are actually a *huge* negative. Search for: | ||
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=namespaces | * [http://www.google.com/search?q=namespaces Tower of Babel namespaces Tower of Babel] | ||
* [http://www.google.com/search?q=namespaces | * [http://www.google.com/search?q=namespaces syntactic vinegar namespaces syntactic vinegar] | ||
Namespaces are actually *not* well supported in sufficient modern browsers, nor even sufficiently with enough W3C technologies or test suites as compared to [[semantic-xhtml|(X)HTML]] | Namespaces are actually *not* well supported in sufficient modern browsers, nor even sufficiently with enough W3C technologies or test suites as compared to [[semantic-xhtml|(X)HTML]] [[semantic-class-names]] CSS. | ||
Namespaces encourage people to seclude themselves in their own namespace and invent their own schema rather than reusing existing elements in existing formats. This hurts interoperability because a dozen different namespaces can all have their own slightly different semantics for the same element. See [http://esw.w3.org/topic/BuildOrBuyTerms BuildOrBuy] for support for this argument, specifically | Namespaces encourage people to seclude themselves in their own namespace and invent their own schema rather than reusing existing elements in existing formats. This hurts interoperability because a dozen different namespaces can all have their own slightly different semantics for the same element. See [http://esw.w3.org/topic/BuildOrBuyTerms BuildOrBuy] for support for this argument, specifically | ||
Revision as of 06:45, 12 April 2007
namespaces considered harmful
(This article is a stub, feel free to expand upon it)
The mixed namespace approach has already been tried by *numerous* others since 1998 and has failed on the Web.
- XML - what is it good for? by David Janes
- XML on the Web has Failed by Mark Pilgrim
- Tim Bray on creating XML dialects
On the other hand, XHTML semantic-class-names has seen widespread adoption among the web authoring/design/IA/publishing community. Microformats is leveraging the approach that is both working better and frankly dominating in practice on the Web.
Namespaces are actually a *huge* negative. Search for:
Namespaces are actually *not* well supported in sufficient modern browsers, nor even sufficiently with enough W3C technologies or test suites as compared to (X)HTML semantic-class-names CSS.
Namespaces encourage people to seclude themselves in their own namespace and invent their own schema rather than reusing existing elements in existing formats. This hurts interoperability because a dozen different namespaces can all have their own slightly different semantics for the same element. See BuildOrBuy for support for this argument, specifically
Use somebody elses rather than making aliases on purpose. It's one thing to make your own and then discover that there's something equivalent out there. It's quite another to willfully clutter the semantic web with aliases; the latter increases the burden on the community of consuming your data, so it's anti-social.
If you start thinking about the web in terms of OOP and polymorphism, namespaces break the polymorphic model that allows you handle widely varied data structures using the same methods.