Is XML getting too hard?

[David Megginson]

Peter Murray-Rust writes:

 > The idea of bundling up many files - promoted by David Megginson -
 > is an exciting one. If I could be assured that I could send a jar
 > file to a client and they could unbundle it seamlessly and
 > effortlessly then I might very well eschew the complexities of
 > namespaces (I'd still use simple ones). Effectively each namespaced
 > object would be a file with a unique namespace. These could be
 > referenced from the document either as NDATA (am I right?) or by
 > XLink.

I think that I might have caused a little confusion here.  I am *not*
suggesting an alternative to namespaces -- I support namespaces in
principle, and expect that they would still be used in the individual
documents.  What I'm explaining is a simpler and more obvious solution
to the specific problem of multiple processes constructing a single
XML document (this was the motivating example that brought in local
scoping -- namespace prefixes that are in force for only part of an
XML document).


All the best,


David

-- 
David Megginson                 david at megginson.com
           http://www.megginson.com/

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