Re: More on Namespaces

Simon St.Laurent (SimonStL@classic.msn.com)
Fri, 14 Aug 98 14:32:03 UT

David Megginson writes:
>With the latest namespaces WD, however, XML can no longer fairly claim
>to be simpler or more transparent than SGML -- the contextual
>dependencies built into local scoping and defaulting are in the same
>class as the contextual dependencies built into SHORTREF and OMITTAG
>(both of which XML wisely discarded), though the algorithms for
>resolving the namespaces are considerably simpler.
>
>It is up to the reader to decide whether the fact of this complexity
>vindicates HyTime or indicts XML. The temptation to obfuscate is hard
>to resist.

I suspect that from the average webmasters point of view, HyTime is irrelevant
(except as possible inspiration) - so XML is indicted, and, I fear, guilty as
charged.

There may be a way around this for the average webmaster or hacker, but not
with the current DTD structure. Another schema may be capable of handling
this both transparently and intelligibly. Hopefully the W3C will take these
issues into account for both the namespaces proposal and for whatever schema
we end up with.

More next week, after I finish this list @#X! chapter. XSchema should be
ready for final review by early next week, and I'll have time to wonder about
complexity again.

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies