 |
 |
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 12:02 +0100, Alexander Johannesen wrote: > On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 16:04, Rob Sanderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > * One namespace is used to define two _totally_ separate sets of > > elements. There's no reason why this can't be done. > > As opposed to all the reasons for not doing it. :) This is crap design > of a higher magnitude, and the designers should be either a) whipped > in public and thrown out in shame, or b) repent and made to fix the > problem. Even I would opt for the latter, but such a simple task not > being done seems to suggest that perhaps the former needs to be put in > place. I totally agree that it's an awful design choice. However it's a demonstration that XML namespaces _do not identify format_. And hence, we need another identifier which is not the namespace of the top level element. > > * One namespace defines so many elements that it's meaningless to call > > it a format at all. Even though the top level tag might be the same, > > the contents are so varied that you're unable to realistically process > > it. > > Yeah, don't use MODS in general; it's a hack. It's even crazier still > that many versions have the same namespace. What were they thinking?! Or TEI for that matter. However I wouldn't call either of them a 'hack' and there are many people who do want to use both of these schemas. Therefore, again, we need another identifier. Q.E.D. Rob