• To: "'Thomas B. Passin'" <tpassin@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:10:47 -0500

But then how hard is it for them to add the namespace 
declarations themselves.

Nothing says this stuff has to be lockstep.  Yes, if 
you want to pass it back and forth, but even then, 
how many players are in the loop?

Namespaces are aggravating in production because it 
takes too much intimate knowledge of the exceptions 
to get it right, and the relationship to a schema 
is confusing.  Tools can be built to hide this, but 
now XML is even less user friendly because it requires 
mediating processes.

len


From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@c...]

[Joe English]
>
> The main reason for using namespace names in a vocabulary
> is so that it can be with other vocabularies to form a document
> type [*].  On the other hand, if a document type contains only
> words from a single vocabulary designed specifically for that
> document type and for no others, there's no reason to use
> namespaces at all.

Unless someone else discovers a clever use for your vocabulary that you had
not foreseen.

• Prev by Date: xml digital preservation
• Next by Date: Re: ANN: XML Schema of measurement units
• Previous by thread: xml digital preservation
• Next by thread: XML indexing/search engine
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread