Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

	8c0@greyarea><990296865.1337.0.camel@localhost.localdomain><00e601c0e0b4$7ec
	 
	21e80$0500a8c0@greyarea><990298368.1339.1.camel@localhost.localdomain><00ff0
	
	1c0e0f4$c3dbd520$0500a8c0@greyarea><990351207.1339.2.camel@localhost.localdo
	 main> <000801c0e13b$4c89c030$0500a8c0@greyarea>
	<990356714.1339.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> 
	<002401c0e141$2a041b90$0500a8c0@greyarea>
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: Evolution/0.10 (Preview Release)
Date: 20 May 2001 12:34:38 +0000
Message-Id: <990362078.1339.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0

On 20 May 2001 16:25:52 +0100, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > But hey, maybe that's what some people want.
> 
> And maybe not. I don't want to cause confusion or lead people down an
> ultimately futile path. I'm looking for reasons why and why not to use a
> particular approach.

You've brought yet another set of namespace issues to the surface, just
when I think we were hoping that things had settled down.  

I think the primary reason for not using the particular approach you
propose is that it is not explicitly blessed by the Namespaces in XML
specification, which purports to explain such mappings, but that doesn't
appear to be enough to satisfy you.

The use of the approach you describe in SOAP means that the XML
community is going to have to take yet another look at how namespaces do
and don't work.  XML Schema already extended namespace functionality by
using QNames in attribute values, and SOAP appears to have gone yet
further.  In my mind, that's embrace, extend, and break, but in any
event we probably should be aware that this is happening.