• From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:22:36 +0100

On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:53:57 +0100
"Michael Kay" <mike@s...> wrote:

> > I've heard that namespaces is a bad design several times, but 
> > I cannot understand why it's a bad design, simply because I 
> > don't know what a good design is. Namespaces is all I know, I 
> > have no reason to believe it's a bad design unless someone 
> > point me to a good design, are there any?
> 
> I agree, it's much easier to say what's wrong with the current design
> than to propose something better. Though I don't think it would be
> hard to design something better if backwards compatibility were not a
> constraint.


Would an easy way to get from 'old' to new suffice?
Some xslt/Java/C transform of an instance which produces the new
version?

I don't think the backwards compatibility 'requirement' will
allow a better design.



-- 

regards 

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk

• 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...>