[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 01:59:08PM -0500, Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> Well, while Namespaces-1.1 may be strongly tied to XML-1.1, it is not
> necessarily true the other way around.
Eric just mentioned why that's a *bad* thing.
> If Namespaces were to be rolled into
> XML, then Namespaces would have to be implemented along with XML just to be
> able to say that a product is XML-1.1 compliant.
And that's a *good* thing. Where's the real benefit in developing a
modern XML environment these days and not implementing namespaces?
If Namespaces were to be rolled into the core specification, there
is nothing preventing a vendor from creating a parser that does
XML without namespace support; they should just call it something
else (like XML-lite or something, which is what XML is without
namespaces). After all, the original SOAP spec had no problem
talking about a subset of XML that was based on ASCII instead of
Unicode.
Z.
|
