Lists Home |
Date Index |
Ronald Bourret wrote:
> Note that there is actually a choice here about how to associate URIs
> and prefixes. Most specs use namespaces declarations. XML-DBMS uses
> elements at the start of the document to declare namespaces. This
> simplifies processing and reduces confusion
This is an important distinction. By providing an application-level
namespace declaration mechanism, you avoid the need to carry around a lot of
unnecessary information about in-scope namespaces. I'm glad to see another
real-world precedent for application-level namespace declarations, because I
too think that QNames in values are eminently useful and that they can be
used without relying on xmlns declarations.
> but also reduces
> portability, since you can't move map fragments around using something
> like the DOM and be guaranteed of correct results.
I'm not sure that it would be very reliably portable. Any processing model
that doesn't consider [in-scope namespaces] to be of significance (because
it assumes that XML namespaces are for putting element and attribute names
in a namespace, how novel) will throw away the prefixes and everything will
> And no, there is no going back. QNames in attribute values are too
> massively useful and easy to use.
Let me rephrase the question: Is it too late to require QNames in values to
be resolved with an application-level namespace declaration?