RE: infinite depth to namespaces

[Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>]

> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@simonstl.com]

<snip/>

> More recently, the unqualified-names-in-qualified-context has led us
> back to circling round and round.  While I'm glad to some 
> extent that my
> filters produced real (and occasionally outraged) response, I 
> also hoped
> that they might in some way represent an escape from the complex
> implications of the subject. By providing conversion from one view of
> the naming universe to the other, I hoped that maybe we could 
> evade the problems.

I think you are on the right path. I did not think so initially, but it
didn't take much for me to come around and agree with the notion that it is
entirely appropriate for applications to adapt the view of an infoset to
suit the application's processing needs, rather than insist that any XML
application must adapt its processing model in every case to suit a rigid
model envisioned by a schema author.
 
> However, it seems that there are many of us who are uninterested in
> escape. Some would rather turn toward an equally endless 
> subject, PSVI,
> to build solutions they think will work for their particular needs.
> Others simply don't mind the ambiguity involved in using unqualified
> names, knowing that their software will deal with it.  (They 
> don't seem
> especially concerned about other people's software.)

This is the problem. One has to wonder why these people are not objecting
strenuously to XSLT. Why there is a technology for which the entire intent
and purpose is to muck with someone else's infoset.

The problem is, if we yield to these notions, XML does not have a very
bright future. The consensus that some are trying to achieve on the matter
of what is the correct practice for the one information set all schemas
should present to all applications is simply not achievable. Insistence on a
single inviolate PSVI to which all consuming applications must adapt their
processing model will always be an endless source of contentious debate, and
resolution one way or the other can only disenfranchise those who need a
different processing model. This can only lead to fragmentation.

Given that one of the key attractions of XML is its malleability, this
strong sentiment against malleability seems to me to be silly and deeply
misguided.