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

Re: XML Namespaces 1.1

• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
• To: "Rick Yorgason" <rick@firefang.com>,<xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:28:17 +0100

I like Rick's idea, but I do understand the other reservations that have 
been raised.

However, I don't think typical XML use-case scenarios are as any-to-any as 
some make out. Some XML usages are in very contained environments, and, for 
new uses, either XML or JSON could probably have been chosen with very 
little system impact.

So that makes me think, in the IETF they have Experimental RFCs, which are 
proposals whose impact on the net are not obvious.  Maybe the W3C should do 
something similar.  The implications of an Experimental Recomendation would 
be "We understand that people are interested in doing something in this 
area, and if you want to do something then we suggest doing this.  But you 
do so at your own risk."

Pete Cordell
Codalogic Ltd
Interface XML to C++ the easy way using C++ XML
data binding to convert XSD schemas to C++ classes.
Visit http://codalogic.com/lmx/ or http://www.xml2cpp.com
for more info
Twitter: http://twitter.com/petecordell

Original Message From: "Rick Yorgason"

>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have to say that I love catching up on all the discussions on XML reform 
> that this list seems to host semi-annually (that's only half sarcastic: as 
> a programmer, I get way more entertainment than I should from day dreaming 
> about how things can be re-engineered to be cleaner) but it always 
> frustrates me that none of this stuff ever gets acted upon, when even the 
> smallest feature could improve our lives a lot.
>
> Case in point: there's almost universal acceptance that XML namespaces are 
> a problem, because recommending URIs as namespaces was a mistake, and 
> because there's no way to refer to a namespaced entity name without xmlns 
> syntax.
>
> Now, people have come up with some great proposals that would vastly 
> improve namespaces, but in reality, we can fix 90% of the problems with 
> just one new rule and one suggestion:
>
> * If a prefix doesn't match a declared xmlns (formerly ill-formed) it 
> shall be shorthand for including an xmlns="prefix" attribute.
> * Namespaces should be in reversed DNS form.
>
> With those two changes, namespaces are no longer awkward to use, no longer 
> difficult to teach, and the cost of adoption for existing libraries is 
> approximately three lines of code.  So what do we have to do to get a new 
> "Namespaces in XML" standard published with these minimal changes?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Rick-
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> 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: XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>

• References:
  • XML Namespaces 1.1
    • From: Rick Yorgason <rick@firefang.com>