Re: Registered namespace prefixes
james.anderson@s... (james anderson) writes: > [...many excellent examples snipped...] > >the same situation applies to universal names, "scoped namespaces", >bound prefixes, and etc. it would be more productive to identify the >inadequacies in the representations used to model them than to try to >trace representational artifacts back to the semantics of namespaces. While I agree with you that there really is no "ideal text", I have a very hard time finding that a justification for the entirely new burdens that Namespaces in XML created. It makes me laugh and cry that I should have to read through all of the attributes of a given element just to figure out what the properly-constructed name of that element is. The complicating factors that XML 1.0 itself introduced - default attributes and entities - at least didn't involve that kind of jumping back and forth. Namespace semantics are a bad joke. Let's stop pretending they ever existed, since no one has ever been able to explain what they are. Labels without built-in semantics appears to be as far as we've ever gotten, and that's hardly worth the representational hassle. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
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