[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
- From: Martin Gudgin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Carlisle <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 22:35:32 +0100
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Carlisle" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
> > I think it's safe to assume I'll get the namespace decls right.
> I think the issue in the namespace rec's advice not to use implied
> namespace decls is not that you (or in general the original intended
> user) will get the wrong namespace, but rather that other people with
> other tools might get the wrong namespace, but anyway it's a moot point
> as you clarified that you really do intend to have two namespaces, or at
> least one (prefix, bound) namespace and the default non-namespace.
OK, glad we both understand what I'm talking about.
> So I agree the use you suggest is perfectly sound. Personally I think
> it's rather strange, and it loses some of the benefits of the namespace
> system in that your child elements are not in the safe haven of their
> own namepsace but having to fight for themselves in the uncharted
> unnamespaced world of "legacy" element names, but this is just
> personal design preferences not really any issue of substance.
Your last paragraph conjures up all sorts of great images! I don't really
anticipate the stuff I generate being used in other documents as most of it
is transient messages. Either way the xmlns='' of the parent will help
protect the child elements from subversive forces ;-)