2009/9/2  <noah_mendelsohn@u...>:
> Hi, Scott.  Further endorsing the advice that Henry and Eliot have given
> you, I suggest you might be interested in the TAG's finding that
> specifically encourages you to provide useful information that can be
> retrieved using the namespace URI.  See [1].
>
> Noah
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/nsDocuments/


...but avoid using dates, for example:

http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema

would have been much better as:

http://www.w3.org/XSLT
http://www.w3.org/XMLSchema

....then you don't have to reassure newbies that they really are using
modern technologies (2.0 and 1.1), despite what they may think from
the namespace.

I would say the main thing is to choose a namespace that wont need to
change, so don't use dates, versions, "beta", codenames etc.  Also the
namespace is often its branding, so using product names might be great
until marketing change their minds and call the product something
else... if the xml is visible to the customer they may ask for the
namespace to change too.

So as an example, if the company is called "foo" and the product is
"foobar", you would probably choose "http://foo.com/foobar", which is
most likely going to be ok, but I'm beginning to think that
"http://foo.com/ns" is the better choice.





-- 
Andrew Welch
http://andrewjwelch.com
Kernow: http://kernowforsaxon.sf.net/