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

Re: Partyin' like it's 1999

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:32:22 -0700
• In-reply-to: <004101c4bba3$40732d90$9b00a8c0@aldebaran>
• References: <004101c4bba3$40732d90$9b00a8c0@aldebaran>

Alessandro Triglia wrote:

> When people complain about namespaces, do they mean that namespaces should
> not exist at all?  Do they think they are useless?  Or do they think they
> should be replaced by something else?  Or do they have in mind some simple
> changes to the syntax, such as using URI/localname pairs everywhere?

When I complain about namespaces, it's just the opposite:
I *don't* want to have to use URI/localname pairs everywhere.
I'd rather treat element type names and attribute names
as simple, atomic strings.  This is possible with a sane API,
but most XML APIs aren't sane.

And of course when you get into serialization/deserialization
or QNames-in-content, it gets even worse: then you have to
worry about namespace prefixes and in-scope namespaces too.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
  • Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Schema Evolution
• Next by Date: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Previous by thread: RE: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Next by thread: Re: Partyin' like it's 1999
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread