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

Re: Tool X (was Re: simple question on namespaces.)

  • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>, Arjun Ray <aray@q...>
  • Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:58:30 -0500

Re: Tool X (was Re: simple question on namespaces.)
Uche Ogbuji wrote:

> Arjun Ray quotes anonymous exchange from internal W3C list:
>
> > : For example, if some company starts using a name space prefix but
> > : doesn't define its vocabulary in some standardized way (so that any
> > : conforming tool can interpret it and validate against it), how can
> > : you ever know if you've handled all their names if you're tryin to
> > : compete with them by providing support for their data elements? You
> > : can't.
>
> Ding ding ding ding!  Now for all those who didn't know what Paul meant by
> "Tool X", this is but one of the possible culprits (and possibly the most
> insidious).  There might also be my example of a tool that retrieves a
> schema and makes processing assumptions differently from a tool that
> doesn't molest the namespace URI.  There are other faces of tool X, and
> all of them are problematic in pratice regardless of the "rightness" of
> their behavior.
>
    I'm not sure that anything in this argument is unique to either
namespaces or whether a schema is retrieved by URL. Isn't this simply a
question: given a document how can you define its vocabulary?

1) look at the DTD indicated by a doctypedef.
2) look at an XML Schema indicated by a schemaLocation URI
3) look at an RDF Schema indicated by a namespace URI.

etc. etc.

The point is that without some type of schema one can never know what
elements might be contained in 'the next' document produced by a particular
tool. Whether the element names are QNames or are all of the form:

wuga-wuga-wuga---foo
wuga-wuga-wuga---bar

is totally irrelevent. Without either a prose specification or a machine
readable schema the vocabulary is not constrained.

Suppose I state:

Documents conformant to XXX must validate against the DTD locatable by a
DOCTYPE definition.

-or-

Documents conformant to YYY must validate against an XSD locatable by the
document element namespace URI.

Leaving aside the public id FPI and assuming we are talking about a system
identifier (for the purposes of constraining this discussion) each mechanism
provides a single system identifier by which a schema is to be located.

What is the functional difference?

Jonathan Borden
The Open Healthcare Group
http://www.openhealth.org



PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3
 

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.


Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.