[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Are we ready for the namespace ID registry, yet? (w as: Re
> > They're not stubs for full namespace IDs, they are the IDs. > > what is to prevent a serializer from following the convention that all > namespace names must be url and all prefixes must be identical with the > authority component of the respective url. The authority component being www.mycompany.com? If I understand you right, that's pretty close to Bradford' Clean Namespaces proposal > http://www.tbradford.org/clean-namespaces.txt > if a required prefix is > missing it puts a binding in. How is it determined that a prefix is missing? > if that would lead to duplication, that > is a fatal error. if a prefix binding is present it enforces the > identity. > > there is already a registry for such things, so just following such a > convention eliminates the "problem". I think the idea of having a convention for minimizing some of the complexities of namespace handling is laudable. Don't use default namespaces, place all xmlns declarations at root, don't use different prefixes for the same namespace, etc. I think we could get a supermajority agreement on that list of recommendations. The problem is that no implementation of any sort of horizontal-market tool can rely on such conventions. Neither can standards-writing bodies, whose specifications get all the more complex because of the idiosyncrasies introduced by namespaces. > "brain-dead". your characterization. I dunno. Whatever happened to the hallowed principle of making things as simple and idiot-proof as possible, then adding modular layers of ever-narrower niche functionality on top? Yes, it's great to make fun of people deemed less technically proficient than ourselves, watch them trip up over all sorts of silly 'obvious' things, and then wonder why they don't want to master our all-powerful creations. Hell, we spent years learning the intricacies of the technology, why can't they? Lazy morons. Of course, if you're merely arguing that the XML universe as it sits today is only about as complex as it needs to be, there's really no point in further discussion. If you want to say the costs of fundamental change overweigh the benefits of simplifying, then I really don't have anything to say, either, as you could be right. Tough call, IMHO. All I did was respond to yet another complaint about namespaces with a rehash of a suggestion. 'Twasn't brilliant, 'tis pretty ugly, and maybe even useless. But so's complaining. And I guess, in the final analysis, that's maybe all I'm doing, so I'll close now.
|
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
|