[Zope3-dev] RFC: ZConfig and other formats for ZCML

[Chris Withers]

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