> 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@megginson.com
http://www.megginson.com/