Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 5/17/02 12:39 PM, "Joe English" <jenglish@f...> wrote: > > Mike Champion wrote: >> >> It's clear that elements, >> attributes, text, and namespaces are more or less universal, >> so they belong at the lowest level. DTDs, data types, >> content model constraints, etc. all have their uses and >> belong in the hierarchy, but not in the base. > > I agree, except for the bit about namespaces being universal. > I very rarely need or use them in my own vocabularies. > Or am I in the minority here? I don't know for sure, but I suspect you are in the majority. But, then, why does this matter? Surely you aren't suggesting that something be eliminated because the majority doesn't use it in their day-to-day work? I could not do what I need to do with XML documents without namespaces, or something like them. This goes for namespaces on attributes too. I had a choice -- I didn't have to use XML, I *could* have invented my own thing. Do I need to say any more on where this leads? Cheers, Bob
|
