[standards-jig] Namespaces

Mike Lin mikelin at MIT.EDU
Wed Aug 7 14:42:16 UTC 2002

> Yes, I do agree with Rob's assessment that prefixes should apply on a 
> per document basis (as opposed to a per stream basis).

If both ends speak whatever prefixes they want, I'm really confused as
to what we are actually gaining by doing this. The same two namespaces
are always used at the stream/packet level, and AFAIK the server will
refuse to route anything it doesn't recognize at the stream/packet
level. So what is _actually_ wrong with fixing a set of prefixes as well
as a set of URIs?

I'm not sure I buy arguments about needing to do this in order to be
"XML correct". We're already using XML in what I would call an extremely
incorrect manner, as a wire protocol rather than a document format. So
long as that is the case, I am sort of squeamishly starting to think
that there is really nothing wrong with having an agreed-upon set of
namespace declarations at the c2s stream level, so long as we are using
this "streaming document" paradigm.

It wouldn't necessarily be harmful to relax this restriction, I'm just
confused as to why it seems so important.


More information about the Standards mailing list