Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Foreign Names
 This isn't quite painful enough yet. Let's switch from pedant-mode to phil-mode. Tim Bray wrote: > > ... > One can have an immensely amusing argument as to whether the Name that > appears in start- and end-tags (and also empty-element tags, as the spec > (tsk, tsk) doesn't say) is the type of the element, or whether the > element's type is an abstract metaphysical what-not which is named by the > type. How can a name *be* a type??? Don't names always have to stand in for something? That which is named? I see three points of view here: * the thing that is named is abstract and metaphysical. Element type declarations allow the computer to know about these pre-existing abstractions. * the thing that is named lives in some concrete data model. "Element type declarations" generate them and "undeclared elements" have implied element type declarations. * nothing is named. We just use the "name" production because it has the syntax we want. The only view that makes sense across all W3C specifications is the third one. Many people wanted to mantain the first two views but over time the link between the string in the tag and any well-defined concept of "type" has become more and more tenuous. * well-formed documents allow the types to go without declaration at all. * namespaces/schemas require the type to be figured out through an algorithm involving the name in the tag and attributes hanging around * neither DOM 1 or 2 give us any way to get from elements to their types * the information set also does not give us a well-defined way to get from an element to its type object I wish that the information set was complete so that we could have a canonical answer to this question. Nevertheless, the strong indication of the various specification is that XML 1.0 is itself wrong. After all, XML 1.0 and namespaces are more or less in conflict about the mapping from names to "things" and namespaces are considered more canonical by the people developing specifications. -- Paul Prescod - ISOGEN Consulting Engineer speaking for himself It's difficult to extract sense from strings, but they're the only communication coin we can count on. - http://www.cs.yale.edu/~perlis-alan/quotes.html *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ *************************************************************************** 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
