[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
>...
> 1) schemes are going to be popular (Simon himself has already
> defined several);
Schemes will be popular but not as popular as namespaces. Therefore a
solution designed for one space may be overkill in another. The KEY
feature of XML is that it is extensible and that extensibility is
reflected today in namespaces. Extensibility is not the key feature of
XPointer and should not be promoted as such. Extensibility in that
context degrades interoperability. Therefore namespace scheme invention
should be allowed but not encouraged to the same extent. Perhaps you
have found a good way to discourage it. ;)
====
Unrelated to schemes:
I must admit to mixed feelings on this qname issue. QNames in data are
so common now that the XPointer spec actually sticks out for trying to
make XPointers context-independent.
"The initial namespace binding context prior to evaluation of the first
pointer part consists of a single entry: the xml prefix bound to the
namespace name http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace.";
I home I'm missing something: if I have ten XPointers in a document and
they each use 3 namespaces, do I necessarily have 30 xmlns declarations?
No matter how theoretically impure QNames in data are, the
30-declaration scenario is ridiculous from a usability point of view. If
this is the case, it has to change. Somehow I end up taking the brunt of
average programmer's hatred of XML and I can feel the flames already.
Paul Prescod
|
