Original Message From: "David Carlisle"
>
> On 28/10/2010 18:30, Pete Cordell wrote:
>> "put this funny prefix on the first element, and the odd attribute in
>> the start and then you don't have to worry about XML namespaces anymore"
>> seems like a big win.
>
>
> But if you put all the elements in the same namespace the same would be
> true except there would be far less namespace problems to worry about,
> What you refer to as an "xpath issue" isn't really anything to do with
> namespaces it is just the extra complication introduced by having two
> namespaces (or rather a namespace and the no-namespace) rather than the
> much simpler and more common choice of having all the related elements in
> the same namespace.
My personal take is that namespaces are good for all the reasons that
namespaces are useful in other programming contexts. Among these are the
ability to re-use types defined in separate standard (for some definition of
standard) type libraries. But just because your schema uses the 'widget'
type declared in the 'http://widgetlib.org' namespace shouldn't necessarily
mean that 'http://widgetlib.org' should appear in your instance documents.
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
