[Dev] Proposal: simplify parcel XML namespaces

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 02:39 PM 6/27/2005 -0700, John Anderson wrote:
>We need to remembert that we're also building a framework, not just 
>Chandler the application. It's important for some applications you might 
>build out of the framework (or even for some Chandler parcels) to easily 
>create any schema and instances, not just U/I centric schemas and 
>instances, even though Chandler's schema is currently dominated by schema 
>U/I. Besides, the best way to create instances in U/I isn't with parcel 
>XML or even a custom U/I centric XML, it's through direct maniplation in 
>the application itself.
>
>So, I think it's a big mistake to make creation of instances and schema 
>tied to any one particular domain, U/I or something else. We can certainly 
>come up with a reasonable syntax that's not domain specific -- after all 
>programming languages have been doing that for years. Then let's 
>concentrate on putting U/I instance creation in the application, like 
>Interface Builder and all the other GUI builders.


This is one of the reasons that I said this:

>>But, these would be evolutionary changes rather than revolutionary, at 
>>least with respect to the parcel loader.  Honestly, unless somebody just 
>>puts together some really smashing idea for a GUI-specific XML syntax 
>>(and soon!), I think that minor improvements to the loader and the schema 
>>will be fine for getting us through 0.7 at the very least.


My comments about how much of Chandler's current parcel.xml does what, was 
more to indicate that I don't think there's really a need for a dramatic 
improvement to the current format, because 3/4ths of all parcels currently 
contain less than 100 lines of XML, and that's really not too bad.  Even 
the worst XML format can probably be endured for 100 lines.  :)