• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:19:18 -0500

bryan rasmussen wrote:
> the reason why it is bad is obvious, CSS is useful for slotting in and
> out what is inessential to understanding of the data, mainly the
> presentation, while namespaces (as currently defined) are an essential
> part of understanding what the data is.

The general notion of using an external document to provide information 
on how to process an XML document is hardly new, though.

See, for one old example:

http://www.simonstl.com/projects/xpdl/

The SGML Prolog is of course even more ancient.

The idea is still appealing to me - but at the same time seems ever less 
likely to catch on generally.  It's kind of funny, though, given that 
W3C XML Schemas may in some instances provide much more information 
necessary to 'properly' interpret a document, "an essential part of 
understanding what the data is."

Layering on top, sure - layering below, consternation.

Thanks,
Simon St.Laurent
Retiring XML troublemaker
http://simonstl.com/

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: CSS instead of Namespace
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>

• References:
  • CSS instead of Namespace
    • From: Dmitry Turin <dev3os@n...>
  • Re: CSS instead of Namespace
    • From: Manos Batsis <manos_lists@g...>
  • Re: CSS instead of Namespace
    • From: "bryan rasmussen" <rasmussen.bryan@g...>