Re: Namespaces, bad idea or worst idea? (Was xpath que

On 23/04/16 17:50, Eliot Kimber ekimber@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Upon reflection I can see that allowing unprefixed elements to be
> associated with a namespace was perhaps not the best idea,

<hat class="documentxml">

I heaved a sigh of relief at the time. Invalidating every document in
the publishing business would not have been a wise move.

> And as somebody pointed out to me privately, the fact that there was no
> good solution for DTD-based grammars was a problem too.

That could have been me; I certainly spent long enough whingeing about
it.  As it turned out, it isn't a problem provided your entire document
is in a single namespace, which is the case for the vast majority of
traditional book/journal documents I encounter, for the reason in your
first sentence.

> But I think we all expected DTDs to go away much faster than they did.

I never saw them disappearing at all, and they haven't gone yet.
95% of my clients still use them (so maybe I'm serving 0.0001% of the
business :-) even though the master schema is probably RNG.

</hat>

///Peter