OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] more QName madness

[ 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


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS