- From: Elliotte Harold <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
- Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:56:35 -0500
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 elharo at metalab.unc.edu Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2006 13:56:35 UTC