From 22a97266fbf9835c4955042e0d7ae7f79a43ed8b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: "psyc://psyced.org/~lynX" <@>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 08:48:38 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] reasoning why XML namespaces aren't better.. they're just
 very verbose

---
 bench/benchmark.org | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/bench/benchmark.org b/bench/benchmark.org
index 798bd36..805f3fb 100644
--- a/bench/benchmark.org
+++ b/bench/benchmark.org
@@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ instead it allows for more addressing schemes than just PSYC.
 
 ** A new status updated activity
 Example taken from http://onesocialweb.org/spec/1.0/osw-activities.html
-You could call this XML namespace hell:
+You could call this XML namespace hell..  :-)
 
 #+INCLUDE: packets/activity.xml src xml
 
@@ -122,6 +122,16 @@ We'll use the latter here:
 
 #+INCLUDE: packets/activity.psyc src psyc
 
+It's nice about XML namespaces how they can by definition never collide,
+but this degree of engineering perfection causes us a lot of overhead.
+The PSYC approach is to just extend the name of the method - as long as
+people use differing method names, protocol extensions can exist next
+to each other happily. Method name unicity cannot mathematically be ensured,
+but it's enough to append your company name to make it unlikely for anyone
+else on earth to have the same name. How this kind of safety is delivered
+when using the JSON syntax of ActivityStreams is unclear. Apparently it was
+no longer an important design criterion.
+
 * Results
 
 Parsing time of 1 000 000 packets, in milliseconds.