Namespace Comments

Don Park (donpark@quake.net)
Tue, 4 Aug 1998 01:30:49 -0700

I have read the latest namespace spec. While I am sure that a lot
considerations and discussions have gone into the spec, I am compelled to
ask why something like the following was not chosen?

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- initially, the default namespace is "books" -->
<xml:namespace uri="urn:loc.gov:books">
<xml:namespace prefix="isbn" uri="'urn:ISBN:0-395-36341-6">
<book>
<title>Cheaper by the Dozen</title>
<isbn:number>1568491379</isbn:number>
<notes>
<!-- drop the default into HTML for some commentary -->
<xml:namespace uri='urn:w3-org-ns:HTML'>
<p>
This is a <i>funny</i> book!
</p>
</xml:namespace>
</notes>
</book>
</xml:namespace>
</xml:namespace>

If attribute-based namespace declaration is the only way to go, why not use
a simple word like 'namespace' instead of 'xmlns' so that its purpose is
clear to the reader?

If 'namespace' is too common, people can qualify it with 'xml' like this
'xml:namespace'? Why not consider changing the name of the standard to
something shorter?

Saving of 4 characters does seem quite worth the use of obscure word like
'xmlns' for something as common as namespace.

Best wishes,

Don Park
CTO/Docuverse