[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word
All, While defenders of XML namespace mechanism might disagree, the mechanism is controversial and troublesome for all parties (users, designers, etc.). However, it is here and we must make the best of it by avoiding troublesome areas. Yes, our academic background drives us toward those troublesome areas as flies, but practicality and common sense dictate that building on shaky ground is not a good engineering practice. XML Namespace is here to stay and we, as XML experts, have to point out to people what area is safe and what is not. Labels or not, if these concepts have to be explained over and over, clarity after long hours of deliberation and creative metaphors is not much of clarity IMHO. As the doctor said, stop doing it if it hurts you. <my:person xmlns:my="http://example.com/my"> <firstName>Chip</firstName> <lastName>Skillet</lastName> </my:person> Ambigous situations like above are best avoided rather than fixing already shaky spec with further complication and special rules in the name of clarity. Programming languages like C and Java can be used to create horrific code. XML is no different. My namespace rule (Simple Namespace Usage Guideline) is simple: no namespace prefix Under this rule, above example is impossible. Instead we would have: <person xmlns="http://example.com/my.person"> <firstName>Chip</firstName> <lastName>Skillet</lastName> </person> Situations my rule cannot cover are addressed by avoiding such sitations at higher level. Sometimes this is difficult, but far less difficult than going the other way. Best, Don Park Docuverse
|
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
|