Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Henry S. Thompson wrote: >... > 1) schemes are going to be popular (Simon himself has already > defined several); Schemes will be popular but not as popular as namespaces. Therefore a solution designed for one space may be overkill in another. The KEY feature of XML is that it is extensible and that extensibility is reflected today in namespaces. Extensibility is not the key feature of XPointer and should not be promoted as such. Extensibility in that context degrades interoperability. Therefore namespace scheme invention should be allowed but not encouraged to the same extent. Perhaps you have found a good way to discourage it. ;) ==== Unrelated to schemes: I must admit to mixed feelings on this qname issue. QNames in data are so common now that the XPointer spec actually sticks out for trying to make XPointers context-independent. "The initial namespace binding context prior to evaluation of the first pointer part consists of a single entry: the xml prefix bound to the namespace name http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace." I home I'm missing something: if I have ten XPointers in a document and they each use 3 namespaces, do I necessarily have 30 xmlns declarations? No matter how theoretically impure QNames in data are, the 30-declaration scenario is ridiculous from a usability point of view. If this is the case, it has to change. Somehow I end up taking the brunt of average programmer's hatred of XML and I can feel the flames already. Paul Prescod
|
