Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Simon St.Laurent" wrote: > > On 01 Aug 2001 12:48:22 -0400, David E. Cleary wrote: > > 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. > > Sure, that's a valid use case. But is there any real reason for > serializing using unqualified (rather than qualified on a per-class > basis) names? > This question is important, to me at least. I accept the points about unqualified local elements not redefining namespaces or XML. But I am still baffled and, to be honest, a bit upset by the cavalier way that the spec sets a default of "unqualified" and endorses what so many of us regard as worst practice, without giving a strong justification or rationale. Is there a strong J. or R.? If not, why did those who opposed in the WG give way? If there is, why not tell us about it? Francis.
|
