> I know it is just aesthetics, but many of those non-w3c specifications
> that do not include dates or versioning in the namespace seem to just
> be very straightforward and as short as possible. So why not just:
I think this is more than just aesthetics. The perennial problem of
web-based technologies is the evolution of this absurd location/identifier
thing that is a URI. I'm a bit old-fashioned, and think that an identifier
is an identifier, and a location is a location. The problem is that, whilst
my XML parser can look at the content of an xmlns attribute and go "This is
a URI-as-identifier not a URI-as-location (despite the fact that it meets
the production requirement for a URL, the URI-as-location)", real people
look at XML, and they cannot but see "http://" without thinking "something
must be there".
I suggested the namespace of "http://www.tei-c.org/namespaces/TEI" not just
because it allows us to, for instance, create a separate namespace for
TEI-developed stand-off markup (e.g. the all-singing all-dancing ISO-ified
FSD), but also because it clearly says "this is a namespace; don't go
looking for a resource here".
We could, of course actually use a URN as the namespace...