Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] > > Sent: 26 August 2001 19:56 > > > > 1) An XML Namespaces best practice for document/application design is to > > define all namespace prefix bindings at the document (root) > > element context. For the record: yeech! In every style guide I've ever seen, the guidance for lexical scoping mechanisms is to use them to localize information to its most natural scope. Loop-private variables are invisible outside the loop, etc. The namespace analogue is evident: declare prefixes as locally as practical. (There's some wriggle room there, intentionally.) I might prefer to see a default namespace decl at the document root, but that's mostly to avoid mixing "universal" and, err, "local" (or should I just say "namespace-less"?) names. (The analogy to Java package names is false; that's not a lexical scoping mechanism. Block scoped variables are examples of lexical scoping mechanisms in Java and most modern languages. "xmlns" declarations are lexically scoped.) > > 2) Use of XML Namespaces is optional in XML document and application > > design - however - it is a best practice to either use or not use XML > > namespaces in a single document format/application. That is, if XML > > Namespaces are to be used, it is a best practice to qualify all elements. I tend to agree with that one. Which is why I'd prefer to see a default namespace decl (always!) at the root -- so that all names, except of course for unprefixed attribute names, are qualified by a namespace URI if any are qualified. - Dave
|
