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

[Dimitre Novatchev <dnovatchev@gmail.com>]

Do have a look at the XML-Shema language. Why are they in a namespace?
For a very good reason -- if they were non-namespaced how would one
identify their elements from any other content? Imagine what a mess
that would be.

Namespace prefixes give "color" to content, making it visible and
distinguishable.

So, the answer is simple: Namespaces are necessary except for the most
trivial examples.



--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play


On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:56 PM, David <dlee@calldei.com> wrote:
> I'm embarking on a project to create a schema (or more likely a collection
> of schema(i?) ) to model a dataset.
> This data is currently represented in a relational database as
> semi-normalized in about 20 tables.
> The underlying data is prety complex, but not in terms of
> attributes/elements but rather some hidden 'business knowledge' which is
> implied by
> fields with coded values and things like shared "string pools".
>
> The end result of this schema will be to be able to re-represent this data
> as XML for mainly internal use, although may be published in some form in
> the future
> (only to partners, not the general public).
>
> This is one of a handful of content sets that are already in XML or are
> already translated to XML, its the 'last dog' of enterprise business data to
> be translated to XML.
>
> Up until now we've never used namespaces. We've been blissfully unaffected
> by not using namespaces.   XQuery and XSLT and pure Java programs have had
> no problem with having no namespaces.   The data is typically in "silos" and
> while sometimes referenced together, is not of the "module" sort intended to
> be embedded in other XML documents, but rather fully standalone data (which
> may reference each other with loose couplings).
>
> I think I know the main reasons to use namespaces, and tons of reasons to
> not to ...
> Equally  confused by Balisage's opening talk last year that (pardon the
> paraphrase)
> "Best Practices for XML"
> 1) "Always use Namespaces:"
> N) "Never use Namespaces" ...
>
> So whats a poor XML geek to do ?
>
> Any *practical* suggestions ?
>
>
> --
> -------------------------
> David A. Lee
> dlee@calldei.com
> http://www.calldei.com
> http://www.xmlsh.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>



-- 
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk
-------------------------------------
Never fight an inanimate object
-------------------------------------
You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what
you're doing is work or play
-------------------------------------
I enjoy the massacre of ads. This sentence will slaughter ads without
a messy bloodbath.