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

Re: HTML5 and almost no namespaces

• From: "Pete Cordell" <petexmldev@codalogic.com>
• To: "Mukul Gandhi" <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>,<stephengreenubl@g...>
• Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 12:32:47 +0100

I think the HTML argument is that the context supplies (or implies) the 
namespace.  For example, you'd typically have documents like:

<organisation>
    <name>ABC corp</name>
</organisation>

<person>
    <name>Jill Doe</name>
</person>

Or even:

<delegate>
    <organisation>
        <name>ABC corp</name>
    </organisation>

    <person>
        <name>Jill Doe</name>
    </person>
</delegate>

By this argument 'name' is not ambiguous because of its context.  In fact 
its quite easy to define a schema that has multiple 'name' elements with 
different meanings.  I believe some would say that is bad design though.

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: "Mukul Gandhi"

With due respects to people who dislike XML namespaces,

Consider the following example:

The element "name" here represents an organization name.

<name xmlns="http://organization-ns">ABC corp</name>

The element "name" here represents a person name.

<name xmlns="http://person-ns">Jill Doe</name>

If I'm presented with either (or both) of these documents, the
namespace binding helps me (and my XML application) to make a logical
association between the XML markup and to the domain with which it is
related to.

And we all say that, XML namespaces helps us to avoid name collisions
(one of the example of this is given above).

I (therefore) personally like XML namespaces. It's an optional
feature. If someone doesn't need XML namespaces in an application, the
XML software stack allows implementing such a design decision.


On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Stephen D Green
<stephengreenubl@gmail.com> wrote:
> Isn't it merely that the HTML5 (WHATWG) people were among the many
> who found Namespaces more easily ignored than implemented? Life is
> too short! Roll on 'MicroXML'! :-)
>
> Still, there may be many who get some value using namespaces in XML.
> ----
> Stephen D Green





-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi

_______________________________________________________________________

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: HTML5 and almost no namespaces
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>

• References:
  • HTML5 and almost no namespaces
    • From: Jesper Tverskov <jesper.tverskov@gmail.com>
  • Re: HTML5 and almost no namespaces
    • From: Stephen D Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
  • Re: HTML5 and almost no namespaces
    • From: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>