[Laszlo-user] More on namespaces and XML schema...
circlecycle at gmail.com
Tue Apr 17 11:04:00 PDT 2007
Excellent points. I had considered the dataset content issue, and it's the
only exception to the rule in terms of namespaces I see.
Your statement on schema for building LZX applications stands, as my current
approach stands apart from an "active editor" approach (or other schema
approaches). I use a tool I wrote (bloomsxml.net) to build LZX code
dynamically, for the record.. I'm sure there are one or two things other
then XSLT out there that are used as well. I don't rely on namespaces
Thanks for the reply, and the elucidation.
On 4/16/07, Fennell, Philip <philip.fennell at hp.com> wrote:
> Although your observations on the uses of namespaces are quite correct
> you have missed the point of my original query regarding XML namespace
> support in datapath XPath expressions.
> I'd agree that LZX itself can exist without a namespace, although it
> helps when generating using XSLT, and it is unlikely to be used in
> conjunction with other XML applications (except XSLT) but the problem
> that I encountered (and undoubtedly others will too) is that we do not
> always have control over the form of the data that we wish to
> reference/embed in a dataset. If that data uses one or more namespaces
> then it makes unavoidable sense to be able to write XPath expressions
> that include the namespace prefixes to ensure no ambiguity/mistakes when
> resolve those path expressions. That is something else that namespaces
> where designed for too.
> The other point about the compiler being namespace/XML schema aware is a
> compiler issue that needs to be addressed if people are going to be able
> to use the schema to aid them in building LZX applications.
> Philip Fennell
> From: laszlo-user-bounces at openlaszlo.org
> [mailto:laszlo-user-bounces at openlaszlo.org] On Behalf Of jamesr
> Sent: 13 April 2007 17:16
> To: laszlo-user
> Subject: Re: [Laszlo-user] More on namespaces and XML schema...
> I'm not sure that anyone is suggesting this, but I feel the need to
> write it anyway.
> Aside from the validation of LZX (which the compiler does by virtue of..
> compiling it) I don't personally see a reason why LZX should include
> namespaces as part of how to build a LZX document. Namespaces help
> delineate area of a document that have different formats. In the case of
> templating languages dealing with HTML, for instance, namespaces are
> used to separate templating instructions from the actual output, where
> those templating instructions are removed by design. In the case of a
> database format, they are very important, since data is context-free in
> the sense that one chunk of data may be completely orthogonal to the
> next in purpose and form.
> However, as a language it is not very likely (please, imagine a scenario
> if you will) where LZX will commingle with other languages. It's like
> putting PHP into a Python program. Sure, there are external interfaces
> to allow them to speak, but because each has access to it's own
> resources lexically, you won't see one line of PHP followed by another
> line of python. Consider that in the data world this may be the case,
> but for programming language?
> I don't believe that namespaces should come anywhere near code that
> describes programmatic operation. It increases the complexity of reading
> the code and describing problems with no advantage in allowing
> capability to mix declarative statements in a way that makes sense.
> My opinion only, thanks for reading :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Laszlo-user