Pete Cordell scripsit:
> Thanks for the comment John. Did you mean to send it off-line? It would
> be interesting to hear others' thoughts on it.
No, just an accident. I've rerouted back to xml-dev.
> Regarding the comment, I think the main difference is that it is all in
> the application layer rather than involving a layer violation that people
> worry about.
>
> I couldn't see how to make a solution backwards compatible with existing
> XML namespaces without it actually being XML namespaces, and so I
> opportunistically concluded that backwards compatibility was out of scope
> :-)
Well, MicroXML uses namespace syntax (except for QNames in element names,
which are not allowed), but puts the information in the application layer.
MicroLark provides namespace functions as a convenience, but does not
hide xmlns and xmlns:* attributes.
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan
[T]here is a Darwinian explanation for the refusal to accept Darwin.
Given the very pessimistic conclusions about moral purpose to which his
theory drives us, and given the importance of a sense of moral purpose
in helping us cope with life, a refusal to believe Darwin's theory may
have important survival value. --Ian Johnston
