[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: A multi-step approach on defining

• To: mc@x... (Mike Champion)
• Subject: Re: A multi-step approach on defining
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 14:59:51 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <ZW2ZLTOIC06RO5PN86LK76F0W1Y4Y.3d63e01b@MChamp> from "Mike Champion" at Aug 21, 2002 02:46:51 PM

Mike Champion scripsit:

> 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?  

Early drafts of the namespace system allowed namespace declarations only
in the prologue of the document (syntactically they were PIs, not attributes),
affecting the whole document.  The problem with that scheme was its lack of
modularity: a component that contributed its bit to a document would have
to be asked beforehand "What namespace/prefix mapping are you going to use?"
and some arbitrator component would have to resolve prefix clashes.

> 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?

Search the archives for "neurotic" and "psychotic" documents.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan@r...  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
"In computer science, we stand on each other's feet."
        --Brian K. Reid

• References:
  • Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof DOM
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof DOM
• Next by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof DOM
• Next by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread