Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 01:59:08PM -0500, Seairth Jacobs wrote: > Well, while Namespaces-1.1 may be strongly tied to XML-1.1, it is not > necessarily true the other way around. Eric just mentioned why that's a *bad* thing. > If Namespaces were to be rolled into > XML, then Namespaces would have to be implemented along with XML just to be > able to say that a product is XML-1.1 compliant. And that's a *good* thing. Where's the real benefit in developing a modern XML environment these days and not implementing namespaces? If Namespaces were to be rolled into the core specification, there is nothing preventing a vendor from creating a parser that does XML without namespace support; they should just call it something else (like XML-lite or something, which is what XML is without namespaces). After all, the original SOAP spec had no problem talking about a subset of XML that was based on ASCII instead of Unicode. Z.
|
