OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

docbook-apps message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] Re: [docbook] To Namespace or Not To Namespace

I couldn't think of any other cons either, but the examples on docbook.org don't suggest it or even mention the possibility, so I'm worried that there might be something that I'm not considering.

-----Original Message-----
From: Warren Young [mailto:warren@etr-usa.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 2:44 PM
To: docbook-apps List
Subject: [docbook-apps] Re: [docbook] To Namespace or Not To Namespace

On 10/3/2014 10:21, Steve Cuzner wrote:
> I'm investigating porting our 4.x docbook to 5.x. For our custom 
> elements, I'm considering adding them to our own namespace so that it 
> is more obvious which elements are docbook and which are custom to our 
> extension. While technically not necessary given that any 
> customizations makes it not DocBook, what are the pros and cons of 
> namespacing our own extension elements?

Namespacing means you avoid conflicts with any future DocBook versions.

As for the cons of not namespacing, I can't think of any other than the extra typing it requires.  Aren't all XML parsers worth talking about namespace aware now?

That rhetorical sweep includes old versions of modern parsers that are still available in "stable" OSes like RHEL and Debian.  MSXML -- made by the company that never met a standard they didn't want to wreck -- has supported namespaces going back to the XP days, a dozen years ago at least.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: docbook-apps-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docbook-apps-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]