[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
rsalz@datapower.com (Rich Salz) writes:
>> >Sadly, my prediction that no-one would ever use XML Namespaces
>because
>> >the whole idea was so unworkable is one of many occasions on which I
>
>I don't think I understand what the alternative is. Is it this?
> Element names don't matter but it can have multiple xmlns:type
> attributes that have URI(s) describing the element?
>
>If that's it, why is that better? Aliasing?
I'm not sure what you mean by the above, but it sounds like you're
throwing out the whole namespace infrastructure. While I like that idea
(and the next vocabulary I'm creating will be unqualified), I'm not sure
it's workable at this point.
>If that's not it, what is it?
My personal tourniquet at this point would just say that QNames should
only be used to refer to element and attribute names. That would let
XPath continue as is, and XPathish aspects of XPointer, but it would
halt other uses of QNames.
Tourniquets do tend to cut off circulation to some parts, but they
sometimes save a larger part.
-------------
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
|
