[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
- From: Martin Gudgin <email@example.com>
- To: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:09:36 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI" <email@example.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
> > I don't understand why you think there is only one right way to use
> > namespaces.
> Because I don't see any logical reason in any other way (at least the
> way). You've failed to rationalize it, haven't you. You once said:
I rationalized it as 'why treat local elements any differently from local
attributes' and 'the mapping makes sense for what I do'
> > That part of the spec is
> > non-normative, I take it to be saying 'here is *one* way to think about
> > namespaces'.
> Yes, that might be true. But apparently someone ignores this
> interpretation and invented another way.
I think it is always healthy to think about things from a different angle.
The namespace rec allows us both to do what we want. XML Schema provides
further facilities for validating documents that both of us may produce.
> And as far as we know, there is
> no logical reason in it! Then now you are saying that I should treat
> your way as an equally valid way to use namespaces.
I think that the way I use namespaces is more natural when mapping from say,
Java classes. I'm sorry you think otherwise.
> I don't think your logic is convincing.
Likewise. I don't see why everyone has to use a given technology the same
way. Most people only use SAX for reading. Does that mean I shouldn't use it
> But I agree that this is much like a religious talk, or our good old
> we use goto statement or not?" debate. There is more of belief than
I think the way I use namespaces is logical. I also think the way you use
namespaces is logical. Both 'all elements are qualified' and 'descendants
are unqualified' make sense.
I'm not arguing against your use of namespaces. I am arguing against your
assertion that there is only one correct way of using namespaces.