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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office-comment message

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

Subject: Re: [office-comment] Section 1.5 - implementations SHOULD use thenamespace prefixes given.

On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 09:53, Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> On Oct 25, 2004, at 11:24 AM, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > I appreciate this implementation difficulty (I assume Qt DOM is purely
> > 1.0, then), but I really think it's a bad idea to abuse the namespace
> > REC by mandating prefixes.
> I'd rather not abuse the *XML* REC by requiring their use!!

I did say one option is to not use namespaces at all, right?

Oh.  Yeah.  For some reason you snipped that whole passage in my

> You are now 
> in a catch-22 position: either you *require* all OO format readers to 
> support namespaces *and* XML, or you require them to just require XML. 
> In the interest of interoperability, I know which one I would choose.

I'm not sure where I see a "catch-22" here.

> > A suggestion of prefix is OK, but not a mandate.
> Why not? You're either going to have to mandate a prefix, or mandate 
> use of namespaces which are *not* part of the XML specification.

This is very confusing language.  "prefix" as I mean it only makes sense
within XML Namespaces.  Do you mean to say that we should use regular
XML element names, but with a colon?  You know very well that the XML
1.0 REC suggests that you treat colons as reserved.  You also know very
well that the reservation was made to apply retroactively to XML

So either we use namespaces, or we don't use prefixes at all.

> Why is 
> is allowable to mandate additional complexity (and hence greater chance 
> for bugs) in an application (i.e. widely-scoped architectural and 
> implementation changes), when it is not allowed to mandate use of a 
> prefix (which ultimately would only change the string constants used 
> for comparison)? This seems to me to be yet another fallacious 
> justification for their use.

I don't really follow this passage at all.

Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
A hands-on introduction to ISO Schematron - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/edu/x-dw-xschematron-i.html
Schematron abstract patterns - http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-stron.html
Wrestling HTML (using Python) - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/09/08/pyxml.html
Enterprise data goes high fashion - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=10061
Principles of XML design: Considering container elements - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-contain.html
Hacking XML Hacks - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think26.html
A survey of XML standards - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-stand4/

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