On 1/24/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gary Poster wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, me too. I'm no XML guru (as Fred will attest ;-) ) but reading
> > the namespaces on an XML file seems like basic XML procedure.
>
> Well, the reading of them is the lesser of my two complaints...
>
> I find it
Fred Drake wrote:
Even if we could avoid it at a technical level, it means that what
we're reading is no longer XML. One of the desires with ZCML was to
not invent everything from scratch. So, *if* we're using XML, we need
to use it as defined, otherwise it *isn't* XML.
Yay.. bow down and w
On 1/24/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find it irksome to have to type them at the top of ever file. Is there
> no way that they could be pre-bound in the XML parser? That way you'd
> only need to inlcude them if you wanted to rebind them...
Even if we could avoid it at a technic
Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, me too. I'm no XML guru (as Fred will attest ;-) ) but reading
the namespaces on an XML file seems like basic XML procedure.
Well, the reading of them is the lesser of my two complaints...
I find it irksome to have to type them at the top of ever file. Is there
no
Stephan Richter wrote:
I'll note that I commonly make browser the default namespace in browser
packages.
And _I'll_ note that it's one of the things in your book that threw
me... I had to do a double take to figure out where all these "new"
directives had come from when I eventually noticed
On 1/19/06, Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - the tags never have any content, that's a sign xml is the wrong solution
When the ZCML syntax was initially proposed I complained about the
fact that it abused arguments and underused nested elements. At the
time it just felt wrong but month
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2006 20:56, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
You didn't read what I said... I assert that anyone who binds the
http://namespaces.zope.org/zope to anything other than the default
namespace, or http://namespaces.zope.org/browser to anything
On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Stephan Richter wrote:
On Monday 23 January 2006 20:56, Shane Hathaway wrote:
Chris Withers wrote:
You didn't read what I said... I assert that anyone who binds the
http://namespaces.zope.org/zope to anything other than the default
namespace, or http://namespaces
On Monday 23 January 2006 20:56, Shane Hathaway wrote:
> Chris Withers wrote:
> > You didn't read what I said... I assert that anyone who binds the
> > http://namespaces.zope.org/zope to anything other than the default
> > namespace, or http://namespaces.zope.org/browser to anything other than
> >
Chris Withers wrote:
You didn't read what I said... I assert that anyone who binds the
http://namespaces.zope.org/zope to anything other than the default
namespace, or http://namespaces.zope.org/browser to anything other than
browser: will be causing confusion for themselves an anyone else who
Stephan Richter wrote:
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:45, Chris Withers wrote:
- the tags never have any content, that's a sign xml is the wrong solution
Not true. All complex directives have sub-directives.
Well, what about the most deeply nested directive directives? And what
about the c
On Thursday 19 January 2006 13:45, Chris Withers wrote:
> - the tags never have any content, that's a sign xml is the wrong solution
Not true. All complex directives have sub-directives.
> - if anyone has or does rebind xml namespaces, it causes confusion.
> having to include the namespace defini
12 matches
Mail list logo
