Lists Home |
Date Index |
Eric van der Vlist <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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
Intriguing -- I would say exactly the opposite, i.e. that QNames provide a
uniform way to ensure that "virtual XML" (what I think of as the
type-enriched infoset) has (namespace name,local name) pairs in it
wherever you want them.
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: email@example.com