• To: "Michael Champion" <mc@x...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: RE: repercussions
• From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>
• Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 13:47:49 -0800
• Thread-index: AcPGXO1R/PrfeqwiRyO/2PwbMJ3ogQAHAFIQ
• Thread-topic: repercussions

> > It is now crystal-clear that allowing qnames to escape from element
&
> > attribute names into content was a terrible mistake that we're now
> > stuck with forever.  I struggled against this idea but lost.  -Tim
> >
> Well, we're not stuck with these things "forever."  If they are really
> lorts more trouble than they are worth, Father Darwin will fix them by

Right.  I don't think many people rely on qnames in content, or when
they do only for very limited scenarios.  There are many places that
qnames in content just don't work (get treated as opaque strings so test
equal with different ns uris, fail to copy relevant namespace decls when
cloning subtrees, and so on).  The Darwinian situation doesn't look good
for qnames in content.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: repercussions
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>

• Prev by Date: Re: repercussions
• Next by Date: Re: repercussions
• Previous by thread: RE: repercussions
• Next by thread: Re: repercussions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread