Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Evan Lenz wrote:
> I believe that XSLT 1.0 was the original culprit, but I could be wrong. Now
> XML Schemas, Canonical XML, and other specs rely on the prefixes and scope
> of namespace declarations as significant information to be passed to the
> application, rather than just a lexical mechanism to resolve element and
> attribute names. This has introduced an amazing amount of complexity. In
> fact, XML Namespaces are actually getting a worse rap than they deserve,
> thanks to this increasingly common and fully-W3C-sanctioned practice.
I addition to the fact that I find it a very bad design practice (XML
could have had a nice layered design which is violated by the usage of
QNames in attributes (or elements) values, there is another major issue
there: some applications (such as XPath) do not support default
namespaces while others (such as W3C XML Schema QName datatype) do!
Eric
--
Rendez-vous a Paris pour mes formations XML/XSLT.
http://dyomedea.com/formation/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist http://xmlfr.org http://dyomedea.com
http://xsltunit.org http://4xt.org http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
