Re: [xml-dev] How to design XML to have broad utility and yet alsoenable

[John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Uche Ogbuji <uche@ogbuji.net> wrote:

 

Thinking unprefix articles share their parents' namespaces

Attributes, I take it.

 

Thinking that elements in namespaces are easily moved around in document syntax (this one is pretty false unless the user has gone with "sane" or "normal" namespaces rules according to the Joe English definition. It is utterly, desperately, egregiously false if QNames are used in content)

If your namespaces are sane, then QiC aren't a special problem.

I also think that "healthy neurotic" documents, which don't use prefixes and just change the default namespaces as needed, are a reasonable second to sane documents.  They don't allow arbitrary movement, and they don't work if multiple namespaces are used in scattered ways, but if they are used primarily at document component boundaries, they are tolerable.  If the MicroXML CG hadn't decided to eliminate namespaces altogether, I could easily have lived with this style.  Liam's automatic namespaces fit with this style.

Thinking you can switch to Jams Clark notation

Not to be confused with Jams O'Donnell notation.

 

--
GMail doesn't have rotating .sigs, but you can see mine at http://www.ccil.org/~cowan/signatures