RE: [xml-dev] A multi-step approach on defining object-oriented nature of DOM

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@microsoft.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 4:15 PM
> To: Margarita Isayeva; bob mcwhirter
> Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] A multi-step approach on defining 
> object-oriented nature of DOM
> 
> [OK, "an" infoset, not "the" InfoSet as far as namespaces are 
> concerned! Dare, if you want a concrete illustration of why 
> namespaces are problematic, consider how differently they are 
> represented in the various specs.]


The fact that namespace declarations and in-scope namespaces are treated
differently in various W3C specs is something I am familiar with and
have written about[0]. However this is not something that is equates to
DIFFICULTY in dealing with namespaces given that Joe Blow developer
doesn't spend his time reading W3C specs. I read on average 10 - 20
posts a day on our XML related newsgroups and when I hear about
DIFFICULTY with namespaces it typically takes two flavors of questions

A.) Why does adding a default namespace to my XML document break my
previously working XPath query? 

B.) Is the namespace the location of the schema for the document? 



[0] http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/dnexxml/html/xml05202002.asp

-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
Putting in a request to go home early is the best way to jinx yourself
and end up working overtime.     

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.