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

Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is amean

• To: The Deviants <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:43:33 -0500
• In-reply-to: <08f001c1a9d2$ca61adf0$0a2e249b@n...>

1/30/2002 4:12:13 PM, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...> wrote:

>
>
> Terseness aside, there is something to be said for human 
> readability, and problems with prefixes aside, people are 
> drawn to qnames because they are
> easy to read, especially if you use a well-known prefix.
>


Right.  This is one of those issues where you have all sorts of 
options and all sorts of situations under which the options are more 
or less appopriate.  I'd remind people of Tom Bradford's "Clean 
Namespaces" proposal http://www.tbradford.org/clean-namespaces.txt 
which more or less reflects the old sml-dev discussion.

Sometimes DOM Level 1 or DTD compatibility is more important, and 
something like Clean Namespaces makes sense.  Other times, terseness 
and human readibility is more important, and the full power of the 
Namespaces Rec and DOM Level 2 makes sense.

And then there are the times when you need to use DTDs and namespaces 
and DOM and XPath and Canonical XML, and a career move into a less 
stressful occupation, such as a Middle East peace negotiator or an 
Enron spokesperson,  makes the most sense :~)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
    • From: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by Date: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Previous by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is a meaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Next by thread: Re: misprocessing namespaces (was Re: There is ameaning, but it's not in the data alone)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread