-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000, Paul Rohr wrote:
> If it doesn't make a difference to expat (and this should be tested), I'd
> vote for using default namespaces (option 2). If nothing else, it trims
> down the bloat in the file format:
Well, I've looked at some code that uses expat, and it appears that
regardless, expat passes element names as (namespace URI)(seperator)(name)
all concatented, regardless of whether we use default namespaces or not.
>
> At 03:45 AM 3/15/00 -0600, sam th wrote:
> >or 2
> ><d ...>
> ><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/SVG">
> > <path .../>
> ></svg?
> ></d>
>
> AFAICT, the extra verbosity wouldn't gain us anything. How badly would this
> raise the hackles of other hardcore XML fans?
>
AFAIK, non-default namespaces are usually used where the writer is
switching between them a lot (as in XSLT/XSL formatting).
However, if you are _very_ anti-verbosity, we could simply dispense with
the namespaces altogether and just invoke the svg stuff on an <svg>
element. However, this would be VERY bad XML, since <svg> is not part of
the abiword DTD and is not defined by us. I would admit to being upset if
we took this route.
> Paul,
> file format minimalist
>
Sam,
apparently the XML partisan
(if you want the title, take it :)
sam th
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://bur-jud-118-039.rh.uchicago.edu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE40aiVt+kM0Mq9M/wRAqYRAKC9I3m0A/gJnwwpZxmX4GAOJv9zhwCgumDr
ofEl2LvK2qvQr8mFLD45wYg=
=jbi3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
