Lists Home |
Date Index |
On 5/17/02 12:39 PM, "Joe English" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Mike Champion wrote:
>> It's clear that elements,
>> attributes, text, and namespaces are more or less universal,
>> so they belong at the lowest level. DTDs, data types,
>> content model constraints, etc. all have their uses and
>> belong in the hierarchy, but not in the base.
> I agree, except for the bit about namespaces being universal.
> I very rarely need or use them in my own vocabularies.
> Or am I in the minority here?
I don't know for sure, but I suspect you are in the majority. But, then, why
does this matter? Surely you aren't suggesting that something be eliminated
because the majority doesn't use it in their day-to-day work? I could not do
what I need to do with XML documents without namespaces, or something like
them. This goes for namespaces on attributes too. I had a choice -- I didn't
have to use XML, I *could* have invented my own thing. Do I need to say any
more on where this leads?