[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: breaking up?
- From: Peter Piatko <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Al Snell <email@example.com>, Sean McGrath <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 16:32:36 -0400
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Snell" <email@example.com>
To: "Sean McGrath" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: breaking up?
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Sean McGrath wrote:
> > I have never - outside of using other W3C technologies - had a need
> > for namespaces and a thin layer of skin peels away from the soles
> > of my feet every time I think about them to hard.
> I've never ever heard that expression before!
As a person more familiar with programming languages than markup, I find
this akin to having an allergic reaction to the "package" construct in Java.
I'm sure plenty of people will point out holes in my analogy, but for the
sake of argument, I could say that packages in Java are around simply to
resolve class name conflicts, and (w/ apologies to Sean for paraphrasing his
above comment) that I have never - outside of what comes with the JDK - had
a need for packages and that various layers of skin and limbs fall off just
at the thought of them (i.e. lord forbid if I put *my* class definitions in
In fact, in Java I don't have to declare my classes in any package, and this
works out fine for small programs, but it's pretty clear that an organizing
principle above class definitions is a good idea as programs get larger.
That's what packages are for.
I tend to think that namespaces in XML at least attempt to play a similar
role to packages in Java. From the past few days of reading the mailing
list I get the impression that many people don't make use of namespaces. Am
I making an even vaguely correct statement? If this is true, I wonder why.
Are vocabularies sufficiently small so that namespaces are unnecessary?