[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
It's difficult for Matt Fuchs and I to have a straightforward discussion because there's some terminology getting in the way: Matt calls elements which are in a namespace "global" and those which aren't "local". I suspect that he associates some [schema-related?] semantics with the terms "local" and "global". It kind of puzzles me, because as we saw here recently, a schema can specify many different validation policies for elements of type <myNS:x> depending on their context, just as any other software is free to take the context into account in applying semantics to markup. So I can't see any sense in which the term "global" is helpful. Put another way: whether or not an element is in a namespace is orthogonal to whether its semantics are context-sensitive. Given this, why would one ever not use namespaces? To conclude: I still claim that when you're inventing a markup vocabulary, interoperability, robustness, and flexibility are improved by placing all your elements in your namespace. In addition to the problems I pointed out before, Matt highlighted another: if you qualify all your own elements, you can't get screwed up by other people's default-namespace declarations; elements that are "local" in Matt's sense of the word obviously can be. -Tim
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|