<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Hi,<div><br><div><div>On 13 Nov 2013, at 10:57, David van der Spoel <<a href="mailto:spoel@xray.bmc.uu.se">spoel@xray.bmc.uu.se</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>The thing is that for small files it doesn't matter, neither DTD nor<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Schema is used if you don't need it. I still have a hard time<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>comprehending why we would like to mix e.g. simulation data with all<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>possible other stuff.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>It’s not primarily about automatically mixing things, but to properly mark up the data: The namespace marks up what the data _is_ and how this data particular is allowed to be formatted. I think this is going to be critically important, in particular in a future where we suddently have dozens of different XML files for each force field. </div><div><br></div><div>As always, it is going to be completely obvious to the original author of a given tool how the data should be formatted, but the thing is that we want it to be obvious to everybody :-)</div><div><br></div><div>I’m also OK with doing a hack, provided everybody later is willing to contribute the work to have a proper design post-5.0! (rather than, say, leaving that to Mark)</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div><br></div><div>Erik</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div></body></html>