4 ms·
And that could not be handled by making an optional namespace which can be used when it is actually needed? Even without namespaces, it's trivial to handle { "
by HdS84 3y ago
And that could not be handled by making an optional namespace which can be used when it is actually needed?
Even without namespaces, it's trivial to handle
{
"NamespaceA": {....},
"NamespaceB": {....},
}
There is seldom need to mix it in the same object, and if you need that, you should think long and hard if you are on the right track.
- pasc1878 3y agoIsn't that what XML did - you only put the namespace in if it was needed. As for multiple ones in the same object it makes sense if you want to reuse a definition used elsewhere e.g. to add an address using a predefined address type. It is like using structures/records in programming languages but with no pointers for composition.