OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: power uses of XML vs. simple uses of XML

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>
  • To: xml-dev@xml.org
  • Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:02:12 -0400

> I think that part of Gavin's point is that from an application writer's
> point of view, disambiguating the names is a tiny little part of the
> much harder problem of making applications where random namespaces
> appear together and "just work." If I add a Corel:P to my Office 2000
> document, Word isn't going to do anything useful with it. Getting Word
> to do something useful with invented tags is the really hard part.

Exactly. In addition, there are two other things:
  1) There are any number of ways of associating processing with 
     an element, and I don't *need* namespaces for any of them.
  2) Most applications don't have to handle "random namespaces" and
     "just work".

> On the other hand, if I have solved the harder problems and am left only
> with the problem of disambiguating names, there is a simple, tried and
> true approach. 

Yes. Again though, point (2) is important here.

At the end of the day, naming is *not* something you can control.
Languages evolve and cannot be controlled by any centralized
authority. The fallacy of a "single namespace" is roughly equivalent
to the fallacy of a "single dtd does everything".

Again, a document combined with it's XSL stylesheet obviates the
need for most namespace usages (the XSL stylesheet is the trusted 
mediator that transforms a desire into action).


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS