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

RE: more QName madness

• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: RE: more QName madness
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 19:09:09 -0500 (EST)
• Cc: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <r01050400-1021-DEE3F90AF82A11D681070003937A08C2@[192.168.124.21]>

> >Sadly, my prediction that no-one would ever use XML Namespaces because
> >the whole idea was so unworkable is one of many occasions on which I

I don't think I understand what the alternative is.  Is it this?
    Element names don't matter but it can have multiple xmlns:type
    attributes that have URI(s) describing the element?

If that's it, why is that better?  Aliasing?

If that's not it, what is it?
        /r$

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: more QName madness
    • From: "Michael Kay" <michael.h.kay@n...>
  • RE: more QName madness
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: more QName madness
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: more QName madness
• Next by Date: RE: dtds, schemas, xhtml, and multimedia technologies
• Previous by thread: RE: more QName madness
• Next by thread: RE: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread