• From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:48:22 -0400

> I'd be curious to know what counts as "a real reason".  Other than
> typographic short-cutting and a vaguely cultural fondness for
> unqualified property names, I've yet to see a "real reason", especially
> a "real reason" where qualified names could NOT be used.

The serialization of objects and structures is a real reason. My guess is
there are more even though I do not know of them. But if there isn't, there
may be some down the road. I don't pretend to know every reason why someone
would want to use XML, but the fact is that this is valid XML 1.0 and it has
nothing to do with Schemas.

Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>

• References:
  • Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Namespaces,W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX FiltersforNamespaceProcessing)
• Next by Date: RE: Namespaces,W3C XML Schema (was Re: ANN: SAX FiltersforNamespaceProcessing)
• Previous by thread: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing)
• Next by thread: RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread