[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
james.anderson@setf.de (james anderson) writes:
> [...many excellent examples snipped...]
>
>the same situation applies to universal names, "scoped namespaces",
>bound prefixes, and etc. it would be more productive to identify the
>inadequacies in the representations used to model them than to try to
>trace representational artifacts back to the semantics of namespaces.
While I agree with you that there really is no "ideal text", I have a
very hard time finding that a justification for the entirely new burdens
that Namespaces in XML created.
It makes me laugh and cry that I should have to read through all of the
attributes of a given element just to figure out what the
properly-constructed name of that element is. The complicating factors
that XML 1.0 itself introduced - default attributes and entities - at
least didn't involve that kind of jumping back and forth.
Namespace semantics are a bad joke. Let's stop pretending they ever
existed, since no one has ever been able to explain what they are.
Labels without built-in semantics appears to be as far as we've ever
gotten, and that's hardly worth the representational hassle.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
