• To: jeffrafter@d... (Jeff Rafter)
• Subject: Re: How to get realistic expectations for Namespaces (was Best Practice = Vanilla XML? )
• From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:19:05 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: jcowan@r... (John Cowan), ricko@a... (Rick Jelliffe), xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <00fa01c24a2a$b85d9da0$32f5d90c@c1980223a> from "Jeff Rafter" at Aug 22, 2002 05:24:45 PM

Jeff Rafter scripsit:

> My only question is,
> now that the DTD has been defined the need for namespaces is gone. To put it
> another way-- is there anything that Reuters Health consumers are doing with
> the data that actually requires namespaces. 

I don't know what they are doing with the data.  For all I know, they are
running it through "grep", which is just what I do when classifying stories
against profiles (call me the Desperate Fgrep Hacker).

Any document that uses namespaces in a sane way does not *need* the prefix-URI
mapping, for there is a one-to-one relationship between prefixes and namespace
names in such a document.

-- 
"No, John.  I want formats that are actually       John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous      http://www.reutershealth.com
internal links in forms which are hideously        jcowan@r...
over-complex." --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

• References:
  • Re: How to get realistic expectations for Namespaces (was Best Practice = Vanilla XML? )
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Hobbsian processes
• Next by Date: RE: Hobbsian processes
• Previous by thread: Re: How to get realistic expectations for Namespaces (was Best Practice = Vanilla XML? )
• Next by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread