S
Simon North
I am documenting C++ classes. We have created an authoring environment and
the developers write the text themselves.
I edit and output the XML instances. I've created my own code (DTD, schema,
XSLT stylesheet and CSS stylesheet) and then
I pump it into RoboHelp. Works pretty well. So far, so good.
However, IMNSHO, the XML instances are awful. The developer responsible has
used namespace prefixes as if they were a cute part of the element name
syntax. An abbreviation of the parent element name becomes the namespace
prefix for its children. The instances therefore look something like this:
<IT:IT xmlns:IAE="IAE" xmlns:IAEA="IAEA" xmlns:IAER="IAER" xmlns:IME="IME"
xmlns:IMEPV="IMEPV" xmlns:IT="IT">
<IT:N> ... </IT:N>
...
<IT:IME>
<IME:IME>
<IME:Name>...</IME:Name>
...
</IME:IME>
...
</IT:IME>
</IT:IT>
This is just a fraction; the nesting goes pretty deep.
Apart from finding this inherently ugly, my gut tells me that this is an
example of something you should NOT do with namespaces. Before I go back and
complain, I'm appealing for help. Am I just being pedantic? ... but if I am
right, what are the convincing arguments why this practice is wrong?
Thanks,
Simon North
technical writer
Quintiq.
Quintiq Application Software BV
's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
the developers write the text themselves.
I edit and output the XML instances. I've created my own code (DTD, schema,
XSLT stylesheet and CSS stylesheet) and then
I pump it into RoboHelp. Works pretty well. So far, so good.
However, IMNSHO, the XML instances are awful. The developer responsible has
used namespace prefixes as if they were a cute part of the element name
syntax. An abbreviation of the parent element name becomes the namespace
prefix for its children. The instances therefore look something like this:
<IT:IT xmlns:IAE="IAE" xmlns:IAEA="IAEA" xmlns:IAER="IAER" xmlns:IME="IME"
xmlns:IMEPV="IMEPV" xmlns:IT="IT">
<IT:N> ... </IT:N>
...
<IT:IME>
<IME:IME>
<IME:Name>...</IME:Name>
...
</IME:IME>
...
</IT:IME>
</IT:IT>
This is just a fraction; the nesting goes pretty deep.
Apart from finding this inherently ugly, my gut tells me that this is an
example of something you should NOT do with namespaces. Before I go back and
complain, I'm appealing for help. Am I just being pedantic? ... but if I am
right, what are the convincing arguments why this practice is wrong?
Thanks,
Simon North
technical writer
Quintiq.
Quintiq Application Software BV
's Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands