|
[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.)
At 05:03 PM 12/29/00 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Simon St.Laurent wrote: >> Perhaps, though you left out the possibility someone mentioned here >earlier >> of multiple definitions for a single namespace - the three DTDs for XHTML >> case, for instance. > > Yeah but a doctypedecl is no better at linking a document to a DTD. No >one has been screaming bloody murder about DTDs in XML 1.0 though! Huh? A DOCTYPE declaration has to point to one and only one of those DTDs, while the XHTML namespace only suggests that it conforms to one of those three. I did try to raise a fuss about the use of URNs for DTD system literals, but no one seemed interested. > The point has been raised that a namespace URI identifies a single >schema (forget content negotiation for the moment). My point is that >doctypedecls also identify a single schema, hence this problem is not new. >If this argument is used to claim 'namespaces are broken' as I've heard, >then it equally claims 'XML 1.0 is broken'. Of course nothing is perfect, so >everything is broken. I don't think it's at all clear that namespace URIs - unlike doctypedecls - do appopriately point to a single schema of whatever kind. Unless you want to create an uber-DTD for XHTML that validates all three flavors - strict, transitional, and frameset. Hey - maybe we can restart the 'one or three namespaces for XHTML' debate while we're at it. I know everyone would just love it. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








