[Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML
Chris Withers
chris at simplistix.co.uk
Mon Jan 23 09:46:33 EST 2006
Jim Fulton wrote:
>> What is the fundamental difference between ZConfig and ZCML apart from
>> the esthetic appearance that everyone seems to be so concerned with?
>
> ZConfig is also generally simpler. For example, it doesn't use XML
> namespaces and is thus less extensible.
I'm sure ZConfig could be made to support the following:
<ns1:something>
attribute1 value1
# Okay, now lets put an attribute in another namespace
ns2:attribute2 value2
</ns1>
We could even add namespace definitions, but personally, I see the use
of those, even in XML, as very suspect...
> They aren't XML, so they aren't elements. You could as easily argue
> that the options in:
>
> <foo>
> x 1
> y 2
> </foo>
>
> are really attributes of foo. In ZCML, this might have been:
>
> <foo
> x="1"
> y="2"
> />
Yep, sorry, this is what I meant, I just misunderstood where JM was
coming from...
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
More information about the Zope3-dev
mailing list