Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bill de hÓra wrote: > Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >> Ok. Any parties interested in posting their favorite five bad >> problems with XML in order here? I wonder what the consensus is on >> the top two. > > 1) Default namespaces > 2) DOM > 3) No Clark notation in XPath (or XML) -see 1 for details. Namespaces in XPath is a large contributor to why people dislike namespaces yes. To be honest I wouldn't want to replace my XPath QNames with Clarkian notation, they'd become a touch hard to read. What I would love to see on the other hand would be more usage of the xmlns() XPointer scheme everywhere XPath is available. It would be oh so simple. http://www.w3.org/TR/xptr-xmlns/ > Prediction: whatever replaces XML will look something like RNC or YAML - > it won't be binary. Heartily agreed, though it may include a binary syntax (that would be one permathread fewer :). At the same time, I sure hope it looks nothing like RNC or YAML, they're not exactly the best syntaxes for text-heavy documents. -- Robin Berjon
|
