[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> > They're not stubs for full namespace IDs, they are the IDs.
>
> what is to prevent a serializer from following the convention that all
> namespace names must be url and all prefixes must be identical with the
> authority component of the respective url.
The authority component being www.mycompany.com? If I understand you right,
that's pretty close to Bradford' Clean Namespaces proposal >
http://www.tbradford.org/clean-namespaces.txt
> if a required prefix is
> missing it puts a binding in.
How is it determined that a prefix is missing?
> if that would lead to duplication, that
> is a fatal error. if a prefix binding is present it enforces the
> identity.
>
> there is already a registry for such things, so just following such a
> convention eliminates the "problem".
I think the idea of having a convention for minimizing some of the
complexities of namespace handling is laudable. Don't use default
namespaces, place all xmlns declarations at root, don't use different
prefixes for the same namespace, etc. I think we could get a supermajority
agreement on that list of recommendations.
The problem is that no implementation of any sort of horizontal-market tool
can rely on such conventions. Neither can standards-writing bodies, whose
specifications get all the more complex because of the idiosyncrasies
introduced by namespaces.
> "brain-dead". your characterization.
I dunno. Whatever happened to the hallowed principle of making things as
simple and idiot-proof as possible, then adding modular layers of
ever-narrower niche functionality on top? Yes, it's great to make fun of
people deemed less technically proficient than ourselves, watch them trip up
over all sorts of silly 'obvious' things, and then wonder why they don't
want to master our all-powerful creations. Hell, we spent years learning the
intricacies of the technology, why can't they? Lazy morons.
Of course, if you're merely arguing that the XML universe as it sits today
is only about as complex as it needs to be, there's really no point in
further discussion. If you want to say the costs of fundamental change
overweigh the benefits of simplifying, then I really don't have anything to
say, either, as you could be right. Tough call, IMHO.
All I did was respond to yet another complaint about namespaces with a
rehash of a suggestion. 'Twasn't brilliant, 'tis pretty ugly, and maybe
even useless. But so's complaining. And I guess, in the final analysis,
that's maybe all I'm doing, so I'll close now.
|
