[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] RE: Namespaces Best Practice
- From: David Brownell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:07:19 -0700
[ simon responds... ]
> >Tree-trickery may not be possible in the context of stream
> >based processing. Sometimes "minimizing the decls" isn't
> >an achievable goal. You may end up adding a few decls
> >in case they're needed later, but it turns out they aren't.
> Sure. What makes the work I'm doing now (which spun off the Regular
> Fragmentations project) fun is that I'm mixing trees and streams. Damming
> the flow of events and creating structures, then releasing the dam and
> letting the structures flow out as events again.
Yep, I like that model. So long as nobody's subsidizing any
construction on the flood plain ... :)
> > > Finally, I don't think variable-scoping is a useful comparison for
> > > namespace-scoping in XML documents.
> >I was going for accuracy in explaining the name binding rules.
> >Actually using those names is a different issue.
> I suppose, though I'm not sure quite how you think it adds accuracy.
Mostly by correcting some false assumptions I thought I was seeing.
> No, I'm suggested that variable scope in programs is much simpler than
> namespace usage in documents, especially complex documents using things
> like XLink or xsi:type. The scopes inside of programs don't typically
> cross-link that way,
There seems to be a missing example here. The things to which
variable names are bound certainly get arbitrarily complex, but
there's no difference in the scopes of the names themselves.
> and you'd not normally think of defining variable
> scopes at the beginning of the entire program.
No more than I think of defining namespace prefixes at the beginning
of XML documents, that's for sure! Global variables are classic
examples of Things To Avoid, and I can't see any reason to treat
xmlns declarations any differently.