• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• To: Pete Cordell <petexmldev@c...>
• Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:59:59 +0100

On 28/10/2010 18:30, Pete Cordell wrote:
> "put this funny prefix on the first element, and the odd attribute in
> the start and then you don't have to worry about XML namespaces anymore"
> seems like a big win.


But if you put all the elements in the same namespace the same would be 
true except there would be far less namespace problems to worry about, 
What you refer to as an "xpath issue" isn't really anything to do with 
namespaces it is just the extra complication introduced by having two 
namespaces (or rather a namespace and the no-namespace) rather than the 
much simpler and more common choice of having all the related elements 
in the same namespace.

David

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industry standards XML Schemas
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>

• References:
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industry standards XML Schemas
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>
  • RE: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns forindustry standards XML Schemas
    • From: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@m...>
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industrystandards XML Schemas
    • From: David <dlee@c...>
  • RE: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns forindustry standards XML Schemas
    • From: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@m...>
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industrystandards XML Schemas
    • From: David <dlee@c...>
  • RE: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns forindustry standards XML Schemas
    • From: Philip Fennell <Philip.Fennell@m...>
  • Re: Venetian Blinds vs Garden of Eden patterns for industry standards XML Schemas
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@c...>