[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)

• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 12:58:46 -0400

On 01 Aug 2001 12:48:22 -0400, David E. Cleary wrote:
> > I'd be curious to know what counts as "a real reason".  Other than
> > typographic short-cutting and a vaguely cultural fondness for
> > unqualified property names, I've yet to see a "real reason", especially
> > a "real reason" where qualified names could NOT be used.
> 
> The serialization of objects and structures is a real reason. My guess is
> there are more even though I do not know of them. But if there isn't, there
> may be some down the road. I don't pretend to know every reason why someone
> would want to use XML, but the fact is that this is valid XML 1.0 and it has
> nothing to do with Schemas.

Sure, that's a valid use case.  But is there any real reason for
serializing using unqualified (rather than qualified on a per-class
basis) names?

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
    • From: Francis Norton <francis@r...>

• References:
  • RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
    • From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Use of XML ?
• Next by Date: RE: Namespaces,
• Previous by thread: RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
• Next by thread: Re: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread