Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>,"XML DEV" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: [xml-dev] Un-ask the question)
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 16:23:40 -0700
- Thread-index: AcI44L5s7zpwlD5ZTVKjvgDg6FOB8wACALfn
- Thread-topic: [xml-dev] Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: [xml-dev] Un-ask the question)
I'm not disagreeing that what the XML below is bad practice. My point, which you completely ignored, was that the feature allows authors to have local attributes which can be tailored specifically to their parent elements without having to be uniquelly named in the document. A side effect of this is the XML that you showed.
I could also make a similar argument for eliminating static methods OO languages because it encuorages people from a procedural background to eschew objects and write their apps as one big mess of static method calls. However, rationally simply because there is potential misuse for a feature doesn't mean that there aren't any benefits.
From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wed 7/31/2002 3:21 PM
To: XML DEV
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: [xml-dev] Un-ask the question)
I'm sorry, Dare, but in my world that's utterly useless, not to mention
confusing and complicating. If you can find a genuinely good reason for
please let me know. Using global attributes to mean something different
in a local context seems completely bizarre and desperately pointless to
me. It's bad practice.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription