[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote:
> Joe Gregorio wrote:
>>
>> <rss version="2.0">
>> <channel>
>> <title>...
>
>
> This could be written:
>
> <rss version="2.0" xmlns="http:../rss">
> <channel>
> <title>...
>
> It is just a few more characters per document and NO prefixes. It also
> makes the document more self-describing and provides a built-in link to
> the documentation page. What's not to love?
Because those few more characters alter the
processing requirements of those receiving the document.
I agree completely with Joe English's response on this.
>
>> I have also run into such a need in other cases, for example
>> I have worked with a group that is, at best, namespace allergic.
>
>
> Anybody who is so namespace allergic that they cannot add a single
> "xmlns" attribute to their document is, in my opinion, trying to make
> life difficult for others, not trying to make life easy for themselves.
I'm not in a position to coerce, nor to judge.
> One "con" is that there is a perfectly good solution in the XML
> namespaces specification. Another "con" is that XPaths into documents
> with namespaces are different than those without, schemas for documents
> with namespaces are different than those without, XSLT templates are
> different etc. etc. Supporting the namespace and no-namespace versions
> will be a hassle in many contexts.
True, but the context really is different between the namespaced
and non-namespaced versions. In one the document is embedded and
in the other it is not. For most cases I would think that the
different contexts would require different XPath using code,
different XSLT templates, etc. On the otherhand, differing
Schema might be a problem and I don't know enough about Schema to
weigh the impact.
Thanks,
-joe
--
http://BitWorking.org
http://WellFormedWeb.org
|
