[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
[Norman Gray]
>
> The point is that namespaces imply a generic transformation which
> removes everything but the elements and attributes in a particular
> namespace. The resulting document can then be processed in a generic
> way (I don't need to point out to you that this is an AF-style view).
>
There are three kinds of things you coulld do with namespaced names in xml.
1) Distinguish otherwise identical names within one document, like
"your:truck" and "my:truck". We would barely need a namespace Rec for this
one.
2) Allow you to apply syntactical rules for a namespaced element that are
specified in another document. We can do this with present day XML
Namespaces by, for example, validating with XML Schema.
3) Allow you to apply semantic rules for a namespaced element that are
specified in another document. 95% of the arguments in these threads are
about the semantics, but XML is about syntax, not semantics. So can we just
drop all these other arguments, please? If someone wants to put up a set of
recommended semantic practices for xml, that is fine and can even be useful,
just like best practices for code layout and commenting can be extremely
useful. Just remember what you are doing, it is not about the Recs. At
least Simon has got to the point where he is outright urging a set of best
practices - Hi, Simon, glad you got there!
Now, are there any residual syntactical issues here? Perhaps, just barely,
the default namespace might remain, but I really think that is purely
semantic.
Cheers,
Tom P
|
