Re: Avoding a repeat of W3C XSD - was Re: Is Web 2.0
* Michael Champion <michaelc.champion@g...> [2005-08-19 23:37]: > On 8/19/05, Alan Gutierrez <alan-xml-dev@e...> wrote: > > > This is the second time in this thread I've seen it written that > > Namespaces are flawed. Please point me to a disucssion or > > article that will illustrate the flaws in Namespaces. I'd like > > to read up so I can continue to follow along. > > My personal favorite is http://xmlbastard.editthispage.com/discuss/msgReader$6 > [duck] I'm at: "DOM and Namespaces: This is terrible! Kill me now!" That sinking feeling. If I'd read this a two years ago, it would have made my path in the development of my project a lot more direct. I attempted to implment W3C DOM as a read-write interface to my page backed document object model. I'd designed the document structure to support and assume Namespaces. I then found all sorts of rude methods in W3C DOM, like setPrefix(), that implied that violating Namespaces was something that an application might want to do. Allowing butchery would mean a document object model that could make no assumptions, thus perform no optimizations. (Prefixes are not stored in the node, they are resolved, for example.) After much hand-wringing, I decided to implement a read-only W3C DOM. I thought about implementing read-write with a lot of assertions, but I didn't want to test and raise on the great many opportunities exceptional conditions. I figured that with so many opportunities for error, existing W3C DOM code would invariably find one of the assertions. Maybe, innocently; Set the wrong prefix, then ammend the namespace declaration. Post-conditions, then? Feh. There was no good way to support legacy W3C DOM node surgery. It was a long, slow, hard slog to come to this decision. The specifications are so nice, formal, and recommended, I assumed that the confusion was through some fault of my own. I'm putting this out there as a user experience. I'm wondering how one could be made aware of these criticisms, they are just as valuable (and in this one case, I feel, more valuable) than the specification itself. > A more temperate is > http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-namcar.html > Most discussions eventually link back to > http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200204/msg00170.html This is amazing. Eye-opening, not sinking. Well-timed. Thank you. -- Alan Gutierrez - alan@e... - http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html - http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
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