Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Original Message From: "Simon St.Laurent"
> 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.
Aren't the URIs effectively just strings as far as namespaces are concerned?
Would it really solve any problems to use some other from of unique string?
> ...
>
>> (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.
The case I'm considering here is when you have:
<foo:myElement
... 1 billion attributes ...
xmlns:foo="http://...">
<etc>...
For example, it would help if all the xmlns attributes must go before the
other attributes. (Followed by xsi: ones and then the rest!)
Cheers,
Pete Cordell
Codalogic
Visit http://www.codalogic.com/lmx/ for XML C++ data binding
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
