[Dev] Parcel namespaces and the schema API

[Lisa Dusseault]

If the namespace doesn't matter -- and I tend to agree -- then why not 
make the namespace we define our elements in be simply 
"http://osafoundation.org/namespace" and let 3rd parties use their own 
namespace?

Lisa

On May 10, 2005, at 7:35 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:

> At 06:04 PM 5/10/2005 -0700, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
>> Third-party parcels shouldn't be in a namespace beginning with 
>> "http://osafoundation.org/".  There are few rules and conventions 
>> about what goes into namespaces but that's one of them -- only the 
>> organization responsible for the domain in the URI (if there is a 
>> domain part) should create a new namespace with that domain or new 
>> elements in such a namespace, or that organization must coordinate 
>> the creation of namespaces or elements in those namespaces.  Since 
>> namespaces exist to disambiguate XML names (QNames) and avoid 
>> collisions, making people re-use a namespace we've already defined 
>> weakens that at least conceptually.
>
> Then maybe we shouldn't be using XML namespaces.  :)
>
> Seriously though, please note that the current parcel loader 
> implementation doesn't support getting its uniqueness from the XML 
> namespace anyway.  If you have two parcels whose directory paths begin 
> with "myparcel", the existing implementation will barf anyway, because 
> it will try to give them the same repository path.  This issue is 
> similar to the Python uniqueness requirement (see below), but is 
> independent since it can effect even parcels without any Python code 
> whatsoever.