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