Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Carlisle" <davidc@n...> To: <marting@d...> Cc: <xml-dev@l...> Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:23 PM Subject: Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage? > > > I think it's safe to assume I'll get the namespace decls right. > > I think the issue in the namespace rec's advice not to use implied > namespace decls is not that you (or in general the original intended > user) will get the wrong namespace, but rather that other people with > other tools might get the wrong namespace, but anyway it's a moot point > as you clarified that you really do intend to have two namespaces, or at > least one (prefix, bound) namespace and the default non-namespace. [MJG] OK, glad we both understand what I'm talking about. > > So I agree the use you suggest is perfectly sound. Personally I think > it's rather strange, and it loses some of the benefits of the namespace > system in that your child elements are not in the safe haven of their > own namepsace but having to fight for themselves in the uncharted > unnamespaced world of "legacy" element names, but this is just > personal design preferences not really any issue of substance. [MJG] Your last paragraph conjures up all sorts of great images! I don't really anticipate the stuff I generate being used in other documents as most of it is transient messages. Either way the xmlns='' of the parent will help protect the child elements from subversive forces ;-) Regards Martin
|
