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

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

• From: Max Toro <maxtoroq@gmail.com>
• To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
• Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 16:19:00 -0400

> It all goes back to the fact that the namespace facility as designed back in
> 1999 was a really bad piece of design work. I wish I could find the email
> that I wrote at the time saying "it doesn't matter that it's bad: it's an
> optional feature, and it's so bad that no-one will use it." But I think that
> not using namespaces isn't really an option today: they are too ingrained in
> the ecosystem.

I've heard that namespaces is a bad design several times, but I cannot
understand why it's a bad design, simply because I don't know what a
good design is. Namespaces is all I know, I have no reason to believe
it's a bad design unless someone point me to a good design, are there
any?
--
Max

2010/4/9 Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>:
>> XQuery really messed this up big time... such a simple thing,
>> and such a huge amount of hassle caused by it.  I know I'm
>> not the only one to be amazed when you first realise that is
>> what is happening.
>
> Yes, it's definitely a usability trap: but then, so many things with
> namespaces are.
>
> My recollection of the history, at a high level of abstraction, is that I
> was constantly pointing out namespace problems to the XQuery Working Group,
> and proposing new features to deal with the problems, and the WG
> collectively was getting more and more irritated by the complexity that each
> new feature added to the language; so it got to the point where I decided it
> would be prudent to let the WG hear the problems from users rather than from
> me.
>
> It all goes back to the fact that the namespace facility as designed back in
> 1999 was a really bad piece of design work. I wish I could find the email
> that I wrote at the time saying "it doesn't matter that it's bad: it's an
> optional feature, and it's so bad that no-one will use it." But I think that
> not using namespaces isn't really an option today: they are too ingrained in
> the ecosystem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Kay
> http://www.saxonica.com/
> http://twitter.com/michaelhkay
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>
>

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Michael Ludwig <milu71@gmx.de>
  • RE: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>

• References:
  • To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David <dlee@calldei.com>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Kendall Shaw <kshaw@kendallshaw.com>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Liam R E Quin <liam@w3.org>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@nag.co.uk>
  • Re: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
  • RE: To namespace or not to Namespace ....
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@saxonica.com>