[jdom-interest] Namespace issues, et al.

Malachi de AElfweald malachi at tremerechantry.com
Sun Feb 23 12:17:06 PST 2003

This might be a bit confusing, but my last two emails were accepted onto 
the list in
reverse order -- so the longer one was written first.

I do understand that the XML/Namespace specifications are listed as 
Candidate Recommendations...
However, for all software my company writes, it is expected, since we are 
required to support
full Unicode, which XML 1.0 does not.


On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:17:45 -0500, Elliotte Rusty Harold 
<elharo at metalab.unc.edu> wrote:

> Malachi,
> 1. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. You're wrong in Namespaces 1.0. You're 
> wrong in Namespaces 1.1. What's going on here has nothing to do with 
> which version of the spec you're using. I understand your confusion. I 
> have seen it dozens of times before. The namespaces spec is a problem. It 
> is not well designed, and it ti snot well written. This has led you and 
> numerous other programmers to make erroneous assumptions. Eventually you 
> will realize why you're wrong, but for now just accept that JDOM is not 
> going to change in this respect.
> 2. You are also laboring under the misapprehension that the current 
> version of XML and Namespaces is 1.1. It is not. It is 1.0. At some point 
> in the future there or may not be a version 1.1, but even if that's true, 
> that day is not today. Very few tools support the *draft* versions of XML 
> 1.1/Namespaces 1.1 that have been released. In fact, I can only think of 
> two that provide experimental support. Irregardless of the version 
> though, unprefixed attributes are still not in the default namespace or 
> the namespace of their element. Your confusion is not caused by what you 
> think it is caused by.


More information about the jdom-interest mailing list