[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Compound Documents - necessary for success?

• From: Ronald Bourret <rbourret@i...>
• To: "xml-dev@i..." <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 16:51:44 +0100

Chris von See wrote:

> I may be showing my gross ignorance of both XML and namespaces here, but
> isn't this at least part of the problem that namespaces were meant to
> address? Granted, as Ron pointed out, a human still has to make the
> decision as to whether "<Height>" is relevant to "<Players>", but once
> there is agreement on what "height.dtd" represents authors should be able
> to re-use that DTD wherever it makes sense.

Nope -- no ignorance at all.  This is very definitely the problem 
namespaces were meant to address.  It's just that the original reaction of 
many people to the namespaces spec is that it somehow solves the "automagic 
combination" and "'valid' against multiple DTDs" problems as well.  (Put 
another way, you can get lunch, but it's not free.)

-- Ron Bourret


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
    • From: james anderson <James.Anderson@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
• Next by Date: re: Namespaces without a domain name
• Previous by thread: RE: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
• Next by thread: Re: Compound Documents - necessary for success?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread