Jim Fulton wrote:
What is the fundamental difference between ZConfig and ZCML apart from
the esthetic appearance that everyone seems to be so concerned with?
ZConfig is also generally simpler. For example, it doesn't use XML
namespaces and is thus less extensible.
I'm sure ZConfig could be made to support the following:
# Okay, now lets put an attribute in another namespace
We could even add namespace definitions, but personally, I see the use
of those, even in XML, as very suspect...
They aren't XML, so they aren't elements. You could as easily argue
that the options in:
are really attributes of foo. In ZCML, this might have been:
Yep, sorry, this is what I meant, I just misunderstood where JM was
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope3-dev mailing list