Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Peter Murray-Rust writes:
> The idea of bundling up many files - promoted by David Megginson -
> is an exciting one. If I could be assured that I could send a jar
> file to a client and they could unbundle it seamlessly and
> effortlessly then I might very well eschew the complexities of
> namespaces (I'd still use simple ones). Effectively each namespaced
> object would be a file with a unique namespace. These could be
> referenced from the document either as NDATA (am I right?) or by
> XLink.
I think that I might have caused a little confusion here. I am *not*
suggesting an alternative to namespaces -- I support namespaces in
principle, and expect that they would still be used in the individual
documents. What I'm explaining is a simpler and more obvious solution
to the specific problem of multiple processes constructing a single
XML document (this was the motivating example that brought in local
scoping -- namespace prefixes that are in force for only part of an
XML document).
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@m...
http://www.megginson.com/
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
