[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> Why use two mechanisms to do the same thing,
> namely establish ownership/semantic scope for names?
To me, this is a design issue more than a practical one: namespaces
belong to markup while QNames belong to applications.
This is the same kind of question than:
- Why model communication protocols as layers?
- Why defined private classes?
It's allways more concise to access private classes, methods and
properties directly and to short-circuit the layers of a protocol...
Allowing QNames creates a dependency between the applications and the
markup which should not exist. It makes it more difficult to build
applications relying on a "virtual XML" which is never serialized as XML.
These are things I find difficult to explain clearly, it's almost a
matter of ethics ;=) something which just makes me feel very uneasy...
Eric
--
Rendez-vous a Paris pour mes formations XML/XSLT.
http://dyomedea.com/formation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
