[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] cooperating with XML was Re: Co-operating with Architectural F
Gabin > > Right. The important thing is to recognize that we *agree* how to > process things, how to interpret them and in some applications, what > the various tags "mean". Nothing intrinsic in XML provides anything > here. GI's, even with namespaces, only work by application convention. > > So, to bring this all back in a circle. I dislike namespaces (or more > precisely, the standardization of namespaces) because they complicate > things (look at all the W3C specs) and *don't give you anything you > couldn't already do without the standardization*. You and I could have > agreed to use gi prefixes for exchanging data, and got along equally > as well. > Sure. Not having been a participant in the XML namespaces debates of 1997-1998 (pre 1997?), my reaction is perhaps different. Suppose we forget prefixes and attributes, then clearly, xmlns can be treated as just a plain 'ole attribute. <foo gavinns="org.example" /> and clearly some sort of AF processor might rename this to xmlns=http://example.org regarding unique names, and preventing clashes, DTDs get around this problem with entity names purely by using somewhat unique prefixes. the binding of prefix to URI is not necessary, at all, for the stated goal of creating unique names, particularly locally unique names. at the end of the day (actually it is friday morning, so i reserve the right to change my mind tonight :-)) the xml namespaces _convention_ has been widely adopted. I completely agree that there is nothing unique, and we could have agreed on a different convention, but we (the we of the larger xml community) has essentially agreed on this convention, as judged purely by the number of W3C and non-W3C specifications, software programs (e.g. SAX2, IE5 etc) and instance documents that use namespaces. I think there is great value in conventions such as XML namespaces, and the value of cooperation outweighs any deficiencies, and perhaps even any complexity, introduced as a way of getting different people to sit down at the same table. A misconception that many technology folks have (and I am specifically not addressing this to you in person, or to anyone in particular) is that the technology exists to be pure, or elegant, and that code exists to be efficient. The technology exists for what it _does_, for the benefits that it delivers to those who use it. The benefits of cooperation outweigh elegance of syntax. This is particularly true of XML. S-expressions which have existed at least since the 1960s really are more elegant, compact etc. than XML, but so what? Jonathan
|
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
|