Re: [xml-dev] To namespace or not to Namespace ....

[David <dlee@calldei.com>]

Good point Liam, the "hating you" part I forgot.  Your right.
If the XML has to look like

<type1:section>
<common:paragraph>Paragraph <linking:alink/> text </common:paragraph>
</type1:section>

Instead of

<section>
<paragraph>Paragraph <alink/> text </paragraph>
</section>


They (and I) *will* hate me.

Ug.

Can this be done by an inclusion at the XSD level ?
So I can atleast get code reuse ?
If not even "documentation reuse" would be useful, that is "document" 
the fact that various tags are "shared" across schemas even if its not 
semantically enforced.







-------------------------
David A. Lee
dlee@calldei.com
http://www.calldei.com
http://www.xmlsh.org


On 4/7/2010 1:33 PM, Liam R E Quin wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:15 -0400, David wrote:
>    
>> [...]
>>      
>    
>>   For example all the schemas have a concept of
>> linking, a concept of paragraphs etc ... while the majority of the
>> structure is domain specific, it would be nice to share the common parts.
>> Which all roads leads to ....
>>
>> Namespaces !!!!
>>      
> In the SGML world it generally led to a shared element pool, as Eve
> Maler liked (likes?) to call it.
>
> Once you make authors deal with
>      <spec1:section>
>        <common:title>..</common:title>
>        <spec2:topic>
>          <common:purpose>
>            <common:paragraph>
>            <spec2:step>
>             <spec9:part-number>...
> they will hate you and make you wear shoes for the rest of your life.
>
> But you are right, it's technically possible. In many programming
> languages, namespaces would let you say,
>
>      import common;
>      import section from spec1;
>      import topic, step from spec2;
>      import part-number from spec9;
>
> and then use unqualified names. That sort of functionality can be a
> great help, but it is not what XML namespaces do today.
>
> Liam
>
>