Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Namespaces alternative? (was Re:WD for Namespaces 1.1)
 1) Thanks for responding. :) I'd rather hear a disagreement than nothing at all. 2) If everyone who is using namespaces appears to be happy with them, then why is anyone even talking about it? Why bother with Namespaces-1.1? 3) Why won't such a thing get traction? Is it too much to swallow? Is everyone absolutely convinced that Namespaces are the only way to go? Is it because this wasn't brought up in a W3C WG or by someone who is even a member of any of the authoritative groups? In certain uses, XML is equivalent to SGML, but I'd say that it's managed to get a fair amount of traction... 4) You are making several statements, but I don't know that they are logically bound as you would have them be: 4a)Why would namespaces-within-schemas take on any more meaning than namespaces-within-xml? Internally, a QName would need to be normalized to the namespace URI plus a NCName. The difference in what I was saying is that the normalized NCName would not necessarily be the same as the LocalPart. This practice is very similar to using a Prefix for the URI alias, with the exception that I allow for the entire name to be an alias. 4b) .What is a "real" QName prefix? If a system is namespace-aware and a namespace has been given, then it must always resolve a name. If your meaning of "real" is that "xsd" always means "XML Schema Language" and that "xsl" always means "XML Stylesheet Language", then there is absolutely no point to declaring an xmlns in the first place; the prefix is the de facto namespace identifier. Since the idea of solely relying on the literal prefix string to handle namespaces is "crazy talk", I am guessing that you have a different meaning for "real". 4d) Can you give me an example of a document that has meaningful namespaces in it that makes any difference to a "well-formed only" system? Well-formed systems act on documents regardless of namespacing issues right now. They assign no meaning whatsoever to the names, attributes, etc. Just because namespaces are tied to schemas does not invalidate the purpose of well-formedness at all. I agree XML cannot rely on well-formedness alone to get anything meaningful done, but this has nothing to do with the relationship between namespaces and schemas. --- Seairth Jacobs seairth@s... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> > <!-- Those who are using namespaces appear to be happy with them. --> > <!-- Equivalent functionality won't get traction. --> > > Namespaces are the conundrum of XML theory. > > If namespaces are tied to schemas, they aren't just punctuation. > If XML requires punctuation and schemas, well-formed only systems > aren't XML. A colonized name doesn't have to resolve to anything > to be disambiguatible if the QName prefix is real. If the namespace > is just punctuation, it only needs the prefix. If the namespace > needs the schema, XML can't rely solely on well-formedness; so the > theory of XML is busted. 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
