[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
The problems arise where the implementation infrastructure fails to support (if not enforce) opaque universal names. The applications must be expressible with
no knowledge of either the lexical origin or the lexical destination of any universal name. where the infrastructure permits this, there is no problem.
Jeff Lowery wrote:
>
> Wait a sec while I change into my Nomex suit...
>
> I'd like to propose a mechanism for minimizing namespace hassles while
> maintaining readability. I expect this will raise hackles immediately, but
> hear me out:
>
> The mechanism for declaring namespace prefixes seems to be the primary
> failure point for namespaces. The association by scope of a prefix and it's
> declaration gives rise to all sorts of mischief when scope changes during
> document manipulation. Add default namespace declarations and things get way
> too interesting sometimes.
>
> All-in-all, given the design motivations of the WG, the basic mechanism is
> sound on a syntax level. Unfortunately, it creates dependencies withing a
> document that then need to be managed both internally and externally. Is
> there a way to manage these dependencies better, make them more
> idiot-proof?
>
A processing model which allows prefixes outside of the parser/serializer creates the problem. Where not prefixes appear, there can be no problem.
...
|
