[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Actually, I was talking about the level of elements
and attributes. The XML document level doesn't mean
very much without type. It's just tag soup with
a coincidental outer tag. In practice, I don't
believe it either.
Namespaces are something to be wary of, not to
be built over.
len
From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@reutershealth.com]
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> >Naah. Namespaces are designed to prevent name collisions and that's it.
> >Anything else is all in your head.
>
> That's the common refrain, and it may be true historically, but in
> practice I don't believe it. The primary use I see for namespaces is
> to quickly and easily recognize elements from particular
> vocabularies, even in the absence of local name conflicts. Resolving
> name conflicts is actually quite rare.
I agree with that at the level of element types and attribute names.
I don't agree at the level of documents, which is the level Len was
talking about (and I suspect you don't either): there is no such thing
(except by accident) as "a document in a namespace". Multi-namespaceness
is the true nature of XML documents.
|
