[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
Richard Tobin wrote: > > There are two points in dispute: whether local elements are good at > all, and whether unqualified ones are (no doubt there is also a view > that *only* unqualified ones are good, but I haven't noticed anyone > arguing that). Local elements are definitely "good at all" -- they clearly have uses in some areas. I'm much less convinced about unqualified ones, although I now vaguely understand the reasoning behind them. I would add a third question: are local elements worth the trouble? One of the useful things about this conversation was Matthew's note of how it paralleled the uproar about how namespaces broke SAX, DOM, etc. and how they imposed a new set of partitions on names that didn't previously exist. It certainly points out where some of my knee-jerk reactions are coming from. For me, the difference was that I was absolutely convinced of the necessity for namespaces, while I'm not convinced of the necessity of the "new namespaces" imposed by local element types. In some ways, this is odd, as the work I do (mapping databases to DTDs) could benefit from them. One other question: when the namespaces spec came out, it was immediately obvious to me what was broken and how to fix it. Does anybody have a clear idea of what things local element types "break" and how to fix them? -- Ron
|
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
|