RE: Clever idea for func:script (was xmlns:exslt)

On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 01:10, [email protected] wrote:
> Uche:
>     I personally would be all for replacing the specification 
>     for func:script/@language to be an Internet media type, 
>     although I wonder whether it should then be renamed 
>     func:script/@type, with @language immediately deprecated.
>     
>     I also wonder how problematic this would be on deployed legacy.
> 
> 
> I favour the attribute approach, since as is pointed out,
> language + namespaces haven't collided yet.
>  I'm  bothered about the language version, but unsure if
> it really is an issue? Uche, how likely is it that Python
> will change sufficiently to impact an exslt implementation?
>   Or should we look to Murphy's law :-)

The language might change, but I think it's probably over-cautious to
worry too much about it.  I think Python (or any other) language
evolution is probably safe to leave as an orthogonal matter for now.

> Only other issue, language="python" vs xml:lang="EN-UK" ?
> Are they sufficiently far apart?

I think since it's in an element named "script", the intent of
"language" is clear enough.  xml:lang is understood by convention.


-- 
Uche Ogbuji                                    Fourthought, Inc.
http://uche.ogbuji.net    http://4Suite.org    http://fourthought.com
A survey of XML standards - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-stand4/
When to use elements versus attributes - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-eleatt.html
Introducing PyRXP - http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/02/11/py-xml.html
XML in the financial services industry - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-think22.html
Python Web services developer: The real world, Part 2 - http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-pyth16/
Keep your XML clean - http://www.adtmag.com/article.asp?id=9012