Original Message From: "Michael Kay"
> On 04/12/2010 01:34, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
>> Heyo.
>>
>> So, I've been (recently, publicly) critical of the Namespaces in XML
>> specification. My summary version: when I try to teach someone who
>> doesn't care about XML about XML APIs, it's namespaces where they
>> Boggle and Fall Down.
>
> I agree with this analyssis.
>
> Elements should have simple (string-valued) names, using hierarchic naming
> to achieve uniqueness, and context-sensitive abbreviation to achieve
> conciseness. It should always be legitimate to use the full name if
> abbreviation is not wanted.
>
> Hierarchic naming: for example an element might be called
> :org.w3c.html.table.
>
> Abbreviation: this might be abbreviated to "table". How is the abbreviated
> name resolved? Using the hierarchic name of the parent element. So the
> outermost element gives the full name
>
> <:org.w3c.html.html>
>
> and inner elements can use abbreviated names if they are in the same
> "namespace":
>
> <:org.w3c.html.html>
> <head>
> <title>...</title>
> </head>
> <body>
> <:org.w3c.svg.svg>
> <rectangle>
I don't know how much of this sort of thing the XML 2.0 discussion will open
up, but based on previous discussions on the list (in which Michael was a
main participant) I put forward the following proposal. I think it adds a
_little_ more flesh to what Michael describes above.
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200908/msg00033.html
It maybe something to add to the stew that is being cooked up!
And I still haven't got used to reading right-to-left :-)
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
