Lists Home |
Date Index |
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com> wrote:
| From: Mike Champion [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
|> It's clear that elements, attributes, text, and namespaces are more
|> or less universal, so they belong at the lowest level.
Namespaces are far from universal. Thanks to unrelenting hype, they may
be ubitquitous, but to me at least, they are still an utter and complete
|> DTDs, data types, content model constraints, etc. all have their uses
|> and belong in the hierarchy, but not in the base.
| POV: I'd rather lose namespaces than DTDs. I seldom aggregate, but I
| often have to validate and get consent.
Yes. But namespaces aren't even needed for aggregation either. (That
argument was destroyed on the XML-SIG list, but conveniently the archive
will remain tucked away from public view.)
| Namespaces don't belong at the lowest level. They aren't XML; they are
A nice argument, except that the counterargument, that URIs are integral
to XML, will emerge presently, and be assimilated into W3C canon. (It's
another teleological imperative.)