• From: David Carver <d_a_carver@y...>
• To: Micah Dubinko <micah.dubinko@m...>
• Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 19:22:02 -0400

Micah Dubinko wrote:
> Thanks for your response, Henri. My goal is to get people thinking 
> about the issues, and in that regard the proposal seems to have 
> marginally succeeded.
Admitedly, I'm coming to this late. In the new proposal, how do we 
handle to grammars that have the same element name and are used in the 
file? (i.e.)

<pre:element>

<fix:element>

If they are both are just element, how do we tell them appart?

I'm not seeing a way to handle element naming colision?  Unless we are 
specifying, using pre.element, fix.element, which resolves to the full 
path.   If this is the case, you aren't solving one of the biggest 
issues that people have outside of the XML community, it's verboseness, 
it's just adding to it.   It's why one of the factors that leads to 
people prefering YML, JSON, and even custom DSLs over XML usage.     
While not perfect, I don't see a huge issue with the current XML 
Namespaces 1.1 spec that needs to be solved.  Maybe because I'm so used 
to using it daily for building B2B messages.

Dave

• References:
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@i...>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Micah Dubinko <micah.dubinko@m...>