Re: infinite depth to namespaces

[Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>]

Fuchs, Matthew wrote:

> Right.  Which is why, if you're going to use local elements in a schema,
you
> should make them unqualified, as that works best with existing software.
> See my response to Rick.

I don't buy this argument for a second. Existing software deals with
unqualified and qualified elements in a similar fashion.

>
> This also shows that best practices need to evolve.  While "put everything
> in a namespace" was reasonable best practice before the arrival of XSDL,
the
> concretization of a notion of "local elements" (I hesitate to call it
> "formalization") - just as the Namespaces rec concretized the notion of
> "global attribute", which hadn't existed syntactically before, although
> people used them - can change what best practices can be.  And best
> practices for local elements is unqualified.

Best practice is to minimize the number of namespaces within a piece of XML.
Related elements, call them what you will, are best placed in the same
namespace.

You are needlessly making things more complicated than they need be.

Jonathan