Conal.Tuohy at vuw.ac.nz
Wed Jan 24 18:25:43 EST 2007
> The reason for having <egXML> in the funny namespace is to allow
> us to say
> <egXML xmlns="....">
> <l>quoth the Raven, <q>neverore</q></l>
> without having to tinker with the <l> element. It
> makes the cut and paste a lot easier.
> This setup was done some years ago, for what seemed like
> good reasons, and it may be that I am just used to it
> despite its madness. It is also implemented, which
> is a non-trivial issue at this point :-}
> However, if anyone (especially Conal, since he is looking
> at it) finds this weird, speak up now.
I do find it a bit weird, yes.
I see the point about the convenience of declaring the "example"
namespace as the default namespace on the egXML element rather than on
its child, to allow for slightly easier cut-and-paste. That makes sense.
I don't want to quibble about it, especially given that it actually
works - I just want to understand it. What I haven't grasped is why the
"funny" namespace is needed at all. What I mean is, why can't the egXML
element and its content all just be in the regular TEI namespace?
More information about the tei-council