Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Original Message From: "David Carlisle" > > 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. My personal take is that namespaces are good for all the reasons that namespaces are useful in other programming contexts. Among these are the ability to re-use types defined in separate standard (for some definition of standard) type libraries. But just because your schema uses the 'widget' type declared in the 'http://widgetlib.org' namespace shouldn't necessarily mean that 'http://widgetlib.org' should appear in your instance documents. Pete Cordell Codalogic Ltd Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes. Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com for more info
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
