Lists Home |
Date Index |
1/30/2002 4:12:13 PM, "Jonathan Borden" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Terseness aside, there is something to be said for human
> readability, and problems with prefixes aside, people are
> drawn to qnames because they are
> easy to read, especially if you use a well-known prefix.
Right. This is one of those issues where you have all sorts of
options and all sorts of situations under which the options are more
or less appopriate. I'd remind people of Tom Bradford's "Clean
Namespaces" proposal http://www.tbradford.org/clean-namespaces.txt
which more or less reflects the old sml-dev discussion.
Sometimes DOM Level 1 or DTD compatibility is more important, and
something like Clean Namespaces makes sense. Other times, terseness
and human readibility is more important, and the full power of the
Namespaces Rec and DOM Level 2 makes sense.
And then there are the times when you need to use DTDs and namespaces
and DOM and XPath and Canonical XML, and a career move into a less
stressful occupation, such as a Middle East peace negotiator or an
Enron spokesperson, makes the most sense :~)