Lists Home |
Date Index |
Bill de hÓra wrote:
> coding against XML is simpler and cheaper when there are no
> namespaces in the document. That cost is there because namespace are not
> syntactic - they neccessitated a model of a universal name, not a token
> for a universal name.
The first sentence is correct. Coding against XML is simpler and
cheaper when all the tags come from one vocabulary; clearly there is a
cost when you have to get into handler dispatching and multi-schema
validation and so on. I think what you're really arguing is that there
are ways to deal with this which are both cheaper than, and just as
general as, the namespaces mechanism. This is a much more constructive
argument than the "Namespaces hurt my tender sensibilities" permathread
that's been going on around here!
If you want another approach to be perceived as a serious competitor,
you probably need to write it up in a relatively coherent form and
publish it somewhere on the Web. Or has that been done?
Perhaps you need to step back a space. Namespaces in XML claims to
allow disambiguation of names from different vocabularies, which it
does. I think you're also arguing that this is the the wrong problem to
try and solve.
Anyhow, write it all down, post it or submit it to a conference or
something, and see whether you can start a revolution. To improve your
chances, identify some working software that implements your approach.
Cheers, Tim Bray
(ongoing fragmented essay: http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/)