Anne van Kesteren wrote:
I've no idea about XForms, but the plan for MathML is that you can write
it without bothering about namespaces, but that it ends up having
namespaces in the DOM.
Then this is what I feared, and it's not sensible. Enabling mixed
HTML/MathML to be processed with generic tools and MathML specific tools
requires that it have the namespace, including all the necessary
namespace attributes. See
http://www.elharo.com/blog/software-development/xml/2006/10/26/chameleon-schemas-considered-harmful/
for some more thoughts on this.
Folks, adding a few xmlns:math or xmlns attributes to a document just
isn't that bad. It is in fact one of the least complex things anyone
trying to write MathML will have to deal with. MathML has a lot worse
than this. Ditto for XForms.
This is like making the driver's seat in a car a little more comfortable
by ripping out the steering wheel. It makes no sense. It is a phobia
that leads to misjudgement the relative problems with different options.
Namespaces do a lot more good than harm. They are necessary to the
proper design of documents. The problem at hand is exactly what
namespaces are designed to do. Please let them do it.
--
Elliotte Rusty Harold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published!
http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
