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

Re: More on namespaces...

• To: Seairth Jacobs <seairth@s...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: More on namespaces...
• From: Bill de hÓra <bill.dehora@p...>
• Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 21:42:45 +0100
• In-reply-to: <002701c330e7$7b5b1050$4b01a8c0@SeairthA31>
• Organization: Propylon
• References: <003601c32e9a$c909a680$a000a8c0@SeairthA31> <3EE78660.4020901@d...> <002701c330e7$7b5b1050$4b01a8c0@SeairthA31>
• Reply-to: bill.dehora@p...
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Seairth Jacobs wrote:

> No, in this case, I am saying the primary vocabulary *never* uses
> namespaces, regardless of whether there are secondary vocabularies or not.
> This would mean that no change in code would be required to handle the
> primary vocabulary. 

Only as long as the primary vocabulary is never embedded in another 
vocabulary or any enveloping document with a default namespace.


> I agree that the "sometimes" approach is not good.  But
> I do not see a need to namespace the primary vocabulary under any
> circumstances.  

To enforce your rules, you need another rule - primary vocabularies 
can never be embedded, even in other primary vocabularies. But to 
paraphrase Meyer, real vocabularies have no top.


Bill de hÓra

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: More on namespaces...
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• References:
  • More on namespaces...
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>
  • Re: More on namespaces...
    • From: Bill de hÓra <bill@d...>
  • Re: More on namespaces...
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: Re: XML Indirection Facility
• Previous by thread: Re: More on namespaces...
• Next by thread: Re: More on namespaces...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread