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

Re: RE: Namespaces Best Practice

• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 10:57:37 -0700

Rick Jelliffe wrote on Thursday, September 20, 2001 

> I hacked together an XML Fragment Interchange server last year,
> and put on a "bubble down" and "bubble-up"  option on it: the former
> put all namespace declarations at the top, the second kept them local.

Looking at this a policy question, I could agree that this is a
case where people will disagree, and hence where flexible
designs are appropriate.  Though clearly the folk who don't
like flexibility will object!

If there are only two policies to support, I like these two; as
well as the easy-to-understand metaphor.

But aren't there issues like "how far do you bubble down"?
Normally I'll think that certain nodes in a given document will
be natural spots to bubble down to, even if some decls could
get bubbled down even further.

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Namespaces Best Practice
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Namespaces Best Practice
    • From: Paul Spencer <paul.spencer@a...>
  • Re: RE: Namespaces Best Practice
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: RE: Namespaces Best Practice
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Urgently need a reality check on the job market for XMLdevelopment
• Next by Date: Re: RE: Namespaces Best Practice
• Previous by thread: Re: RE: Namespaces Best Practice
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Namespaces Best Practice
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread