RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore the basicprinciples

["Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca>]

Pete,

Exactly!

Cheers,
Peter 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Cordell [mailto:petexmldev@codalogic.com] 
> Sent: July 3, 2012 04:36
> To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Cc: David Lee
> Subject: RE: [xml-dev] "Introducing MicroXML, Part 1: Explore 
> the basic principles of MicroXML"
> 
> On 1 July 2012 16:01, David Lee <dlee@calldei.com> wrote:
> > John Cowan Sez ...
> >> This all seems to me nothing more than a vast to-do about 
> whether a 
> >> general-purpose href attribute ought to be xlink:href or xml:ref.
> >> I cannot take the question seriously.  "Parturient montes, 
> nascetur 
> >> ridiculus mus."
> >
> > My take is a little more serious.  If an attribute is part 
> of the xml 
> > namespace then there is a presumption that all consumers of "XML"
> > understand and apply the semantics.  I would think it would 
> be a "must 
> > do".  But putting an attribute in another namespace makes 
> it a "do if 
> > you want to support that thingy".   I think this is a big 
> difference.
> 
> I would take the completely opposite view.  Xlink and friends 
> are there for vocabulary designers to use, but they imply no 
> requirement for support by a basic XML parser and a 
> vocabulary designer is at liberty to define their own set of 
> attributes that do the same thing or something slightly different.
> 
> I see no reason why some set of attributes in the XML 
> namespace should not be available to vocabulary designers on 
> the same basis.
> 
> Then, in much the same way that xmlns in MicroXML is an 
> application level concept, xml:href could also be a purely 
> _optional_to_understand_ application level concept.
> 
> Thus it seems to me that the XML namespace should be as big 
> as it needs to be but no bigger.  But really it doesn't 
> matter whether it includes the kitchen sink because only 
> applications that are interested in those features (on a pick 
> and mix basis) will be burdened by them.
> 
> The benefit of course is that documents won't have to include 
> xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"; and developers 
> don't have to deal with understanding namespaces, which is 
> one of the main motivations of MicroXML.  If we require the 
> use of xmlns:xlink then all we've done is move namespaces up 
> to the application level, which may make us XML fanatics more 
> satisfied with our architecture, but just foists the problem 
> directly onto developers and does nothing to alleviate the 
> general confusion they have about using namespaces.
> 
> (P.S. Sorry for my late entry into this debate.  I was 
> waiting for Michael Kay's input. But since he's abstained I 
> now have to work things out for myself!)
> 
> Pete Cordell
> Codalogic Ltd
> Interface XML to C++ the easy way using XML C++ data binding 
> to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
> Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com for 
> more info
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> 
> 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
> 
>