[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: How much extra code for multiple Namespaces?

• From: <schen@f...>
• To: David Megginson <david@m...>
• Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:24:35 -0400 (EWT)

Hi Dave, everyone,

On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, David Megginson wrote:

> Paul Prescod writes:
> 
>  > Adding three lines of code introduces the opportunity for three times
>  > the bugs in a real application? I don't buy it. Looking for "HTML 4.0
>  > strict" OR "HTML 4.0 frameset" is no harder than looking for "UL" OR
>  > "OL", if the software is set up right.
> 
> Not with most current software and specs, unfortunately -- with XSLT,
> JavaScript+DOM, XQL, XPointer, or anything else that's likely to be
> deployed within the next 24 months, we're looking at more like
> 
>   3 * (# of refs to element names) * (# of refs to attribute names)
> 
> For any non-trivial XML code, such as an XSL stylesheet, that's
> probably at least 500-600 extra lines.  Of course, if you're rolling
> your own, low-level software in Perl or Java, you can always design
> the infrastructure any way you want.

I don't understand this point of contention (see other thread about my
questions about Namespace processing).

As there is no defined mechanism for namespace processing and it seems
that with xmlns and contained elements "inheriting" namespaces, you would
still need some mechanism to recognize namespaces and it would be folly to
use current non-recognizing parsers anyway.

If you have such a mechanism then it should be fairly trivial to map all
three XHTML namespaces into one, if as you say 99% of applications will
treat them all the same anyway.  Then it is nowhere near the extra amount
of code that you claim?  If you could, pls give an example!

I would have to say it seems that this lack of mandate on how XML
processors should deal with Namespaces is a huge lack, without even a W3C
issued Note about it either if I'm not mistaken.  Ann may say that it
seems the future direction is to bind the Namespace URI to a schema, but
without any public guidance how can we implement current Namespace-aware
processors?  I very much lean toward Paul Prescod's and James Tauber's
proposals.

Then again as I'm still trying to clarify exactly how namespaces are meant
to be used, I may be way off base.  Please feel free to correct my
impressions =)

. . . Sean.



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: How much extra code for multiple Namespaces?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • How much extra code for multiple Namespaces?
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: why distinctions within XHTML?
• Next by Date: Re: Over 10,000 XHTML authors?
• Previous by thread: How much extra code for multiple Namespaces?
• Next by thread: Re: How much extra code for multiple Namespaces?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread