Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?

[Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI"
<kohsukekawaguchi@yahoo.com>; <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 4:25 PM
Subject: RE: Namespace: what's the correct usage?


> Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
> >
> > [MJG]
> > Actually, I provided that example because I thought you may be
> > happier with
> > it. In reality I use the class name for the top-level element.
> > Why? Because
> > typically I'm serializing an instance of a class and I probably don't
know
> > the name of the local variable the class is bound to, indeed a given
> > instance may be bound to multiple local variable names. So I use the
class
> > name as the localname of the top-level element.
> >
> ...
> >
> > In the above the Person instance is sometimes bound to the local name
> > 'martin' and sometimes bound to the local name 'o'. So I use the type
name
> > for the top level and then the field names of the Person class
> > for the child
> > elements.
> >
>
>
> This argument seems hopelessly complicated. The most reasonable way to
> define a person name structure is:
>
> <person.name xmlns="http://example.org/person">
> <given>Martin</given>
> <family>Gudgin</family>
> </person.name>
>
> why would anyone want to complicate this with different namespaces for
each
> element of the structure?

I wouldn't 'complicate it with different namespaces for each element in the
structure'. I would qualify the top-level element ( person ) and not qualify
the children. This seems the most natural mapping to

package example.org.person;

public class person
{
    String given;
    String family;
}

to me at least...

The text in the previous post was trying to show why I would use 'person' as
the top level element rather than 'marting' or 'o'

Martin