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

Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....

• From: Michael Ludwig <milu71@gmx.de>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 20:22:35 +0200

Hi Liam,

Liam R E Quin schrieb am 07.04.2010 um 13:33:33 (-0400):
> In many programming languages, namespaces would let you say,
> 
>     import common;
>     import section from spec1;
>     import topic, step from spec2;
>     import part-number from spec9;
> 
> and then use unqualified names. That sort of functionality can be
> a great help, but it is not what XML namespaces do today.

But it's what they'll do once this proposal (of mine :-) gets
accepted:

http://markmail.org/message/dbldtr52yawcrbtv

Namespaces could be declared using a super-easy DTD syntax. They
could be imported using PUBLIC or SYSTEM identifiers, allowing for
easy combination. They could be declared ad-hoc using an optional
prefix, which would be mandatory if needed for disambiguation of two
local names in the same namespace. And everything about namespaces
would be statically known by virtue of it being defined in the DTD,
hence a considerable reduction in complexity as explained here:

http://markmail.org/message/utae2qaibwkky7gr

Namespaces in the DTD, it would be so cool :-)

-- 
Michael Ludwig

• References:
  • To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David <dlee@calldei.com>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "John L. Clark" <jlc6@po.cwru.edu>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David <dlee@calldei.com>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>