[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [xml-dev] Namespaces best practice: managing dialect evolution --

To: "'Ian Graham'" <ian.graham@utoronto.ca>,<xml-dev@lists.xml.org>
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Namespaces best practice: managing dialect evolution --
From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 09:36:58 -0000
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0111072244270.8391-100000@ic-unix.ic.utoronto.ca>
Reply-to: <michael.h.kay@ntlworld.com>

> So, there are strengths in both approaches -- but the real
> world probably
> lies in between. Has anyone thought through this issue, and
> determined a good strategy to follow?

I've thought about the issue and haven't determined a good strategy to
follow!

But a practical point, having "variant" namespaces (several namespace URI's
whose vocabularies have a high degree of overlap) is very bad news when it
comes to writing XSLT and XPath.

Mike Kay

References:
- Namespaces best practice: managing dialect evolution --
  - From: Ian Graham <igraham@ic-unix.ic.utoronto.ca>

Prev by Date: RE: [xml-dev] DOM or SAX: Sense and Sensibility
Next by Date: Re: [xml-dev] DOM or SAX: Sense and Sensibility
Previous by thread: Namespaces best practice: managing dialect evolution --
Next by thread: Re: [xml-dev] Namespaces best practice: managing dialect evolution --
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread