J.Pietschmann wrote: > peter reilly wrote: >> True. It seems quite difficult to use namespaces in a nice way. > > You are not supposed to "use namespaces in a nice way".
That's a matter of taste. Some people like "nice way", some people like UUIDs. There is nothing in the namespace definition that prevent it from beeing nice. > XML Namespaces are there so that you can avoid name clashes > for XML element and attribute names if you want to use XML > vocabularies from various uncoordinated sources together. > XML Namespaces do *not* have the purpose of > - link to a web page > - point to a library/jar > - link to whatever ressource. I agree that XML namespace is not bound with any of those meanings, in the XML spec. But I found nothing in the spec to mention that it is not allowed to have meaning. If that would have been the intention, they would have used some UUIDs or explicitely put it in the syntax that nothing that has a meaning can be used as namespace. > While even "names" from W3C TCs obviously commited such abberations, > this doesn not mean it is good style. In fact, abusing XML namespaces Style is a matter of taste :-) There are working and valid systems ( Axis, Xslt ) that use the namespace with associated meaning. Costin
