RE: infinite depth to namespaces

[Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>]

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

<snip/>

> "And its competitors" gives me hope.  I have to question references to
> W3C XML Schema as an unqualifiedly good thing, especially in 
> the context
> of the current namespaces discussion.  It seems quite clear 
> that W3C XML
> Schema has blessed, probably even fortified, a namespace practice best
> described as "controversial".

I think it is a good thing so long as we accept that it is ill-suited to
some needs, it is not the only viable schema language, and the views of the
schema author should not dictate the processing model of every consuming
application. It would be an even better thing if the W3C would more clearly
position XSDL as just one possible schema language that it has chosen to
specify, more clearly position its PSVI properties as just one possible
metadata vocabulary suited to particular application domains, and more
clearly acknowledge the different roles of validation, transformation, and
annotating information with metadata that are conflated in the current
vision of the PSVI.

The competitors give me hope, as well. I hope that this will stimulate
further innovation and cross-fertilization, and XML Schema will only get
better as a result. If not, then we just have to make sure that XML users
understand they have choices. 

And none of the protestations on this list (or anywhere else) will ever stop
me from doing whatever transformations or filtering on a document instance
that suit my applications' needs. And if I need to, I'll even write a SAX
filter that changes element names! <shudder/>  ;-)