Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 31 Jul 2001 12:14:00 -0700, Ronald Bourret wrote: > Even as I was writing my "you shouldn't do this" comment, I knew it > wasn't completely valid. Telling somebody they can or can't use a > product in a certain way is always a debatable thing to do. I think what > upsets me is that: In this case, I wish this usage had been considered during the development of the namespaces spec and dealt with explicitly. The problem seems to be that a debateable practice was permitted (not forbidden) by that spec, and that subsequent specs have provided explicit support for that practice. It's very difficult now to change that. > 1) Unqualified child elements strikes me as a bad practice, period, so I > don't want to do anything to encourage it. I agree that it's bad practice. I'm considering this bit of code as an exercise in coping, not an exciting venture into new terrain. > 2) Simon's solution needs to be applied carefully, since it has a very > real potential for name collisions. I agree completely. That's a large part of why I went to the trouble of creating rules functionality that allows developers to apply it selectively to particular namespace contexts. I worry quite strongly about developers who mix qualified and unqualified elements with the same local name in a single document type. That seems like playing with fire, at best, and it's something that it's very difficult to control. I haven't seen any examples of that yet, and I hope never to see it.
|
