[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
- From: Francis Norton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 22:36:57 +0100
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> On 01 Aug 2001 12:48:22 -0400, David E. Cleary wrote:
> > The serialization of objects and structures is a real reason. My guess is
> > there are more even though I do not know of them. But if there isn't, there
> > may be some down the road. I don't pretend to know every reason why someone
> > would want to use XML, but the fact is that this is valid XML 1.0 and it has
> > nothing to do with Schemas.
> Sure, that's a valid use case. But is there any real reason for
> serializing using unqualified (rather than qualified on a per-class
> basis) names?
This question is important, to me at least. I accept the points about
unqualified local elements not redefining namespaces or XML. But I am
still baffled and, to be honest, a bit upset by the cavalier way that
the spec sets a default of "unqualified" and endorses what so many of us
regard as worst practice, without giving a strong justification or
rationale. Is there a strong J. or R.? If not, why did those who opposed
in the WG give way? If there is, why not tell us about it?