Tres Seaver wrote:
+1 to that.  I think Chris doesn't really believe in the Second Law of
Python (according to the prophet Peters).

Urm, can you refresh for someone with hazy knowledge of PSU epistles?

Shane Hathaway wrote:
No, Chris just doesn't like XML namespaces. You can still have explicitness without XML namespaces.

namespaces have their place, ZCML is not it ;-)

I think I'm starting to grasp the XML division among Zope developers. ZConfig schema definitions use a conventional style of XML with deeply nested elements, text nodes, and no namespaces,

Ah yes, XML as it was intended ;-)

while ZCML uses its own style with minimal nesting, many attributes, and many namespaces.

What? Insanity ;-)

Many of us have a strong preference for one style or the other and we're perplexed that others would actually prefer their crazy style.


I remember that Jim once presented two XML samples and asked which one was more readable. I preferred many elements over many attributes. He preferred the opposite. I thought he was crazy, and as I recall, he thought I was crazy, too. :-)

Me? I think you're both crazy: use .conf format...

Eh... I guess every mailing list ends up battling over style concerns. The least important issues lead to the biggest battles. After I throw some quotes and colons at you, you can throw some angle brackets and ambiguous whitespace at me, then we'll call a truce. :-)


I'm enjoying the discussion and honestly, I'll be happy to go with what the majority decide...



Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
Zope3-dev mailing list

Reply via email to