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

RE: Pragmatic namespaces

• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
• To: "'michael odling-smee'" <mike.odlingsmee@gmail.com>
• Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 09:33:37 +0100

 

Also we have xml:lang, soap:mustUnderstand, soap:actor  etc. (these latter two often appear on their own outside the soap namespace context e.g. ebXML) etc. Personally I am not against namespaced attributes but there again I do not develop XML/XSL tools merely just use them so I am not au fait with the pain they may (or may not cause). As a developer once I "got" how namespaces work they have never really caused me much pain.

 

 

Making life easier for implementors isn't a realistic objective unless we're talking about a completely new technology that wipes the slate clean: implementors can't escape supporting the legacy. The objective now, I think, is to make life easier for content authors. Or am I mistaken?

 

Regards,

Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
http://twitter.com/michaelhkay

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Micah Dubinko <micah.dubinko@marklogic.com>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Michael Ludwig <mlu@as-guides.com>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: michael odling-smee <mike.odlingsmee@gmail.com>

• References:
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Richard Salz <rsalz@us.ibm.com>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: rjelliffe@allette.com.au
  • RE: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>
  • Re: Pragmatic namespaces
    • From: michael odling-smee <mike.odlingsmee@gmail.com>