Lists Home |
Date Index |
Adam Turoff wrote:
> Um, namespace-aware parsers have no problem parsing markup without
> namespaces. :-)
Sure, but I doubt if any v1.1 parsers would bother to support DTDs, given that DTDs
would suddenly only be capable of expressing a subset of the recommendation. Rolling
namespaces into XML may provide benefits, but the cost to some organisations would be
high - they may have to convert to a schema and retool their workforce.
Additionally, I'm not keen to see a situation where the version of my document is
dictated by whether I want to parse with a DTD or a schema. This just seems like the
latest in a string of moves to get rid of DTDs, despite the fact that they fit very
well in many current systems.
> I'm talking about mandating their inclusion in the next version of
> the core XML recommendation, not requiring their usage in XML
> version N.
The two seem inextricably linked, aren't they?
> Starting from a foundation where namespaces are known
> to always exist makes it easier to write specifications and use
> any random XML parser for any random use.
Namespaces do not always exist, so you can't use any random XML parser for any random
use. The fact that you want it to be so indicates that the change may not impact you,
but it will impact others, no matter how many benefits combining may ultimately
Marcus Carr email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."