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

[Michael Ludwig <milu71@gmx.de>]

Rob Koberg schrieb am 09.04.2010 um 14:23:28 (-0700)
[Re: [xml-dev] To namespace or not to Namespace ....]:

> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> wrote:

> > I agree, it's much easier to say what's wrong with the current
> > design than to propose something better. Though I don't think it
> > would be hard to design something better if backwards compatibility
> > were not a constraint.
> >
> > The two fundamental problems with namespaces, I think, are
> 
> I think, this is the problem. People are not distinguishing the real
> concerns or the parser and processor developers from the users of
> their products (what I think most people consider as the application
> developer).

People were distinguishing those concerns last summer. Sorry for quoting
myself, but I'm better at recalling my own words than others' words:

http://markmail.org/message/ki2wioq4jhjwkdb2 2009-08-06
http://markmail.org/message/63lq7t4li4fvcx2t 2009-08-07
http://markmail.org/message/uotw7zcsc75jstgz 2009-08-11

> I think smart people (who didn't really want to learn XML in the first
> place?) grabbed onto the expressions of frustration from the parser
> and processor people dealing with namespaces scattered all over a
> document.

Not sure I understand, but I think those expressions from the select few
"parser and processor people" are hard to come by. Maybe it's because
I'm not into telepathy, but it was only when asking directly to the
point that I became aware of their thoughts.

> For the end user, namespaces are very useful.

Well, yes ...

> They probably don't even know they are working with them.

Countless clueless postings on mailing lists confirm this fact :-)

> For the application developer (one step down from the parser processer
> dev), it might be a pain to lean a new naming convention, but it
> really isn't that difficult.

I agree. But it's too difficult (or tiresome) for some of them, and
maybe they just don't like the syntax and the URI identifiers, which are
very difficult to read. (URIs should be simplified and made like Java
packages, why not, people know that stuff.) For non-tech users, current
XML namespaces are quite simply something to avoid, both conceptually
(redeclarations!) and syntactically.

> I think a reasonably competent javascript developer could understand
> it easily if there wasn't the easy fallback to the lower level devs
> completely rational criticisms.

I've never heard any application developer back up his opposition to XML
namespaces by parser or processer developers' reasonings.

Bottom line for me:

* Namespaces are absolutely necessary.
* The current design is too complicated, its usability is poor.
* Namespaces V2 will be much better.

-- 
Michael Ludwig