[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
veillard@redhat.com (Daniel Veillard) writes:
> Well XML for data is also kind of ridiculous, you end up repeating the
>same tags and local structures over and over again. But that didn't
>prevented it from being extremely successful in that area. For some
>carrying overweight as extra redundant context seems to be considered
>a good thing, for others it's an heresy, go figure ....
I have an easier time accepting redundancies that define similar
structures (that's the basic price of embedded markup) than accepting
redundancies used for declarations.
In XPointer's case, it feels like we're trying to create a collection of
XML documents with one or two elements and have to include a ten-line
internal DTD subset every single time. I don't see any good way around
the xmlns scheme for cases where pointer parts need to know about
namespaces, but extending that verbosity to scheme names, some of which
are themselves supposed to be abbreviations, seems both unnecessary and
not particularly helpful.
As annoying as the Namespaces in XML scoping rules may be, they do at
least have the virtue of avoiding most of this redundancy (in documents
if not in code), and their impact on XML's existing verbosity is
relatively minimal.
-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether
|
