• From: Michael Ludwig <milu71@g...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 23:12:00 +0200

Michael Kay schrieb am 09.04.2010 um 21:53:57 (+0100)
[RE:  To namespace or not to Namespace ....]:

> A simple clean design which would avoid these problems might be as
> follows:
> 
> (1) elements and attributes have hierarchic names, for example
> org.fpml.invoice, which can always be written out in full if so
> desired
> 
> (2) if abbreviated names are wanted to reduce verbosity, then at the
> outermost level of a document (perhaps in the internal DTD) prefixes
> can be defined
> 
> <!PREFIX f = org.fpml>
> 
> allowing the element name to be written as <f:invoice>

Ha! In the DTD! Good old DTD! :-)

Cheers,
-- 
Michael Ludwig

• References:
  • To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David <dlee@c...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Kendall Shaw <kshaw@k...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@g...>
  • RE: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Max Toro <maxtoroq@g...>
  • RE: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>