[XML-SIG] XBEL / Call for extension
frans.englich at telia.com
Fri Jan 28 17:50:27 CET 2005
On Friday 28 January 2005 16:34, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 16:21 +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> > On Friday 28 January 2005 15:57, Christian Junk wrote:
> > > Am Freitag, 28. Januar 2005 16:46 schrieb Uche Ogbuji:
> > > > On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 16:44 +0100, Christian Junk wrote:
> > > > > Perhaps we should think of using XML Scheme instead of DTD?
> > > >
> > > > RELAX NG, please.
> > >
> > > So, don't you like XML Scheme?
> > FWIW; I think Uche is right, RELAX NG is better, at least because it
> > allows more fine grained specification. You can convert RNG to WXS with
> > trang, so if the specification is the expressed in RNG it doesn't exclude
> > the latter.
> > But XBEL would still be namespace less? Or what is people's thoughts on
> > that?
> Well, my inclination would be to keep it namespace-free. The nice thing
> about keeping it namespace-free is that it helps keep processing simple.
> Namespaces are a simple idea that inject a ridiculous amount of
> complexity in practice. I'm always happier when I can process XML
> without namespaces.
> If anyone does call for XBEL to define a namespace, what is your
> specific use case that compels it?
This is my opinion.
If I were to design XBEL from the ground up I would have put it in a
namespace. Doing it at this point would be done in the name of somekind of
"XML-correctness". While it itches to suggest it, I don't think it justifies
all the compatibility havoc it creates.
More information about the XML-SIG