Namespace Comments

Don Park donpark at
Tue Aug 4 10:40:45 BST 1998

I have read the latest namespace spec.  While I am sure that a lot
considerations and discussions have gone into the spec, I am compelled to
ask why something like the following was not chosen?

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- initially, the default namespace is "books" -->
<xml:namespace uri="">
<xml:namespace prefix="isbn" uri="'urn:ISBN:0-395-36341-6">
    <title>Cheaper by the Dozen</title>
      <!-- drop the default into HTML for some commentary -->
      <xml:namespace uri='urn:w3-org-ns:HTML'>
          This is a <i>funny</i> book!

If attribute-based namespace declaration is the only way to go, why not use
a simple word like 'namespace' instead of 'xmlns' so that its purpose is
clear to the reader?

If 'namespace' is too common, people can qualify it with 'xml' like this
'xml:namespace'?  Why not consider changing the name of the standard to
something shorter?

Saving of 4 characters does seem quite worth the use of obscure word like
'xmlns' for something as common as namespace.

Best wishes,

Don Park

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list