Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Pete Cordell wrote: > The namespace problems are often mentioned. Are there any pointers to > how, with the benefit of hindsight / no baggage, XML 1.0 + namespaces > should have been done? URIs are the cause of much of the theory pain - specifying a smaller mechanism without the heavy baggage (and promises) that URIs carry would have been helpful. I'm not thrilled about the declaration syntax, but that's one case where I haven't really found a better option. In any case, my proposal is _just_ subsetting, not redesign. Redesign is, I think anyway, better done through developing a new spec, under a different name, etc. (See JSON for one example.) > (Certainly from a databinding point of view it would be nice if the > worst-case number of characters you had to look-ahead to work out the > namespace of an element (or attribute) could be predictable.) Personally, I'd call that a severe case of over-optimization. If people are sending you documents with namespace prefixes that are more than 20 characters long, something wacky has gone wrong. > P.S. If we're looking for features, how about an xml:type attribute > rather than having to use xsi:type? Wow - now that's precisely the kind of potential disaster I'm hoping to avoid by focusing on the layer _below_ schemas. Let's _not_ look for new features. Thanks, Simon St.Laurent Retired XML troublemaker http://simonstl.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
