Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
yes; agreement on all points. mr. harold is not the only one who would have benefitted. the only aspect of which i can comprehend, is the claim, that, being able to bind the prefixes over a dtd would have broken the rule that namespaces should not "change the validity of a given document". which claim is true, but which i believe to be fundamentally misdirected. it's an old argument. Ronald Bourret wrote: > > james anderson wrote: > > > ? which of the "namespace aware" parsers will permit you to parse > validate a > > document for which partions of the dtd contain element declarations with > > ambiguous names - without first modifying the dtd? i've yet to hear a > solution > > to the "ambiguous name" problem for xml-1.0/+ns conforming parsers. > > Good point -- it was unfair of me to blame the parsers here. It all seems > rather obvious now: > > Q. Why were namespaces invented? > A. To disambiguate duplicate names. > > Q. I have a DTD with duplicate names. How do I disambiguate them? > A. Use namespaces. > > The only inobvious bit is that, because there is no way to declare > namespaces in the DTD, you can't declare different default namespaces for > different parts of the DTD, which would have solved Elliotte's problem > rather neatly. 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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 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...)
|
