[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Ok. Here's two:
<!-- Those who are using namespaces appear to be happy with them. -->
<!-- Equivalent functionality won't get traction. -->
Namespaces are the conundrum of XML theory.
If namespaces are tied to schemas, they aren't just punctuation.
If XML requires punctuation and schemas, well-formed only systems
aren't XML. A colonized name doesn't have to resolve to anything
to be disambiguatible if the QName prefix is real. If the namespace
is just punctuation, it only needs the prefix. If the namespace
needs the schema, XML can't rely solely on well-formedness; so the
theory of XML is busted.
len
From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@seairth.com]
Hmm... Despite what I thought was a serious challenge to namespaces, not a
single person had any comments on it (not even Len). Does this mean that
the idea is so wrong-headed that it isn't worth discussing? Is what I said
just not understandable? I am amazed that such a vocal group has absolutely
nothing to say on the topic...
|
