Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Actually, I was talking about the level of elements and attributes. The XML document level doesn't mean very much without type. It's just tag soup with a coincidental outer tag. In practice, I don't believe it either. Namespaces are something to be wary of, not to be built over. len From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...] Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit: > >Naah. Namespaces are designed to prevent name collisions and that's it. > >Anything else is all in your head. > > That's the common refrain, and it may be true historically, but in > practice I don't believe it. The primary use I see for namespaces is > to quickly and easily recognize elements from particular > vocabularies, even in the absence of local name conflicts. Resolving > name conflicts is actually quite rare. I agree with that at the level of element types and attribute names. I don't agree at the level of documents, which is the level Len was talking about (and I suspect you don't either): there is no such thing (except by accident) as "a document in a namespace". Multi-namespaceness is the true nature of XML documents.
|
