Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Matthew Fuchs wrote: > > >#2 was never true for me in the first place. In fact, I > > would consider the > > >use of namespaces to be orthogonal to the use of local element types. > > > > Yes! Anyone disagree? > > > > I'm not Evan means what you think he means, as he later agrees that local > names should not be in a namespace, which you seem to vehemently disagree > with. What I said was: "I would consider the use of namespaces to be orthogonal to the use of local element types." I don't think I claimed that the use of local element types should be in a namespace or not (hence "orthogonal"). I'm not sure what you're referring to...? > In any case, namespaces are just a mechanism which can be used in a > variety of ways. I believe the use of namespaces is related to what you're > using them for. In particular, I believe they were intended to help > disambiguate things, to uniquely identify things. If you are working with > Schemas, rather than in the well-formed world, then namespaces should be > used to disambiguate the kinds of things you can define with a Schema. I agree with all of this. In fact, my understanding of namespaces has been heavily influenced by XSLT's use of namespaces, which further tears down the notion that a name necessarily signifies a content model. QNames are used for variable names, template names, mode names, etc. (Let's consider the prefix-namespace-binding mechanism separately; mentioning this does not necessitate a debate about the relative merit of using QNames in attribute values.) Content models (or ty*es) are irrelevant. This reinforced for me the idea that namespaces are just, like you said, "a mechanism which can be used in a variety of ways". Evan Lenz XYZFind Corp.
|
