Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof
8/21/2002 1:16:12 PM, Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote: >Namespaces should never have been scoped. That's a big part of what >drove the implementation complexity up to such a large degree. Maybe I'm too busy thrashing in the seaweed to get my head above water, but what would a namespaces spec without scoping look like? Every element has to explicitly specify its namespace? Unprefixed element/attribute names are in "no namespace" whatever that means? Can the current spec be "profiled" to suggest sane best practice here, or does the spec itself have to be fixed to make un-scoped namespaces work properly? That would be a lot simpler for implementers ... would users accept it? I guess that those who understand how badly they can, uhh, foul up, themselves with scoping/defaults might!
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