[jdom-interest] Is JDOM dying?
Malachi de AElfweald
malachi at tremerechantry.com
Mon Mar 17 21:53:42 PST 2003
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:42:01 -0000, Robert (Jamie) Munro
<rjmunro at arjam.net> wrote:
> To me, that sounds like a misuse of namespaces. An element called <foo>
> in namespace X has no relationship to an element called <foo> in
> namespace Y. If they are in effect interchangeable, (they can be written
> by the same piece of code), they should have been in the same
> namespace to start with.
> The point of namespaces AFAICS is that if you have an <a> tag, it is
> only a link if it is in the xhtml namespace. In another namespace it
> isn't a
> link, it's a random tag. JDOM works well with this philosophy.
But that was my point. There are many W3C specs that have an 'a' tag
the 'href' attribute. Realistically, most of them are HTML-oriented... but
is at least 5 major version of HTML (including XHTML) and many minor
of these could benefit from a single class that turns the URL LINK into an
tag. There is no reason to create a new version of this class for each
html and xhtml (and who knows what else), when they always mean exactly the
As a side note, I agree that they shouldn't need to be in multiple
namespaces -- but
as long as there are proprietary namespaces, that will happen. You think
Tivoli and JMS
and MQSeries will share a common namespace, or all do their own
implementation from scratch?
More information about the jdom-interest