xml-dev - Re: ubiquitous XML?

[Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com>]

Paul Tchistopolskii wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > 4. No namespaces, PIs e t.c. ( they're addressed by 5/6/7 ).
> > > 5. Reasonable Schema.
> > > 6. Reasonable Xpath.
> > > 7. Reasonable XSL.
> >
> > Most interesting - how do you do plan to do xslt without namespaces?
> 
> Easy. For example - XSLScript (www.pault.com) has no need
> in namespaces.
> 
You hard-code the X: prefix, but your syntax appears to disambiguate
XSLScript keywords and source elements in any case, so no problem there.

But it still uses namespaces when translated back into XSLT, so it
doesn't address the general question of what happens when you want to
mix data different schemas in a single document.

Do we have a sugar-syntax for every grammar that includes elements (or
attributes!) from foreign grammars, while keeping the namespaces in play
underneath the sugar?

Francis.
-- 
Francis Norton.

why not?