At 05:26 PM 6/24/2005 -0700, Bryan Stearns wrote:
Hi pje,
-1 : I don't like this idea, because it conflicts with the notion that XML
namespaces are supposed to be URIs, disambiguated from all other namespace
names by the domain name embedded in them.
Then we should get rid of XML namespaces altogether here; parcel namespaces
are *not* globally unique and never have been; repository paths and Python
package namespace requirements prevent them from being globally unique.
Yes, by using "parcel:" instead of "http:", you're avoiding conflicts with
other http URIs, but introducing the potential for conflict (however
unlikely) with someone else who arbitrarily breaks the same rule and picks
"parcel:".
I'm curious about what use cases will be satisfied by introducing
non-Chandler XML namespaces into a parcel.xml document. I can't rule out
such a possibility entirely, of course, but I haven't been able to come up
with anything that makes any sense right now.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
