Difference between revisions of "namespaces-considered-harmful"

From Microformats Wiki
namespaces-considered-harmful
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Fixed URL for David Janes article)
Line 6: Line 6:
 
since 1998 and has failed on the Web.
 
since 1998 and has failed on the Web.
  
http://blog.davidjanes.com/mtarchives/2005_10.html#003410
+
http://blog.davidjanes.com/:entry:davidjanes-2005-10-04-0000/
  
 
OTOH, XHTML + [[semantic-class-names]] has seen widespread adoption among the
 
OTOH, XHTML + [[semantic-class-names]] has seen widespread adoption among the

Revision as of 19:48, 29 August 2006

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.

http://blog.davidjanes.com/:entry:davidjanes-2005-10-04-0000/

OTOH, 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.

http://microformats.org/blog/2006/01/09/tim-bray-on-creating-xml-dialects/

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.

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.

See Also