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

RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.

• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:05:05 -0700

At 05:19 PM 24/08/01 -0700, Evan Lenz wrote:
>if what you mean by
>"element types are global" is that there is always a one-to-one
>correspondence between an element name and a content model.

Ron, is this what you mean?  Has anyone ever argued that there
should be a 1-to-1 linkage between name and content model (or
any other set of semantics)?

>#2 was never true for me in the first place. In fact, I would consider the
>use of namespaces to be orthogonal to the use of local element types.

Yes!  Anyone disagree?

>Yes, and so it should, and so they should. In my world, types and names are
>not necessarily the same thing.

I agree.  Unfortunately, XML 1.0 uses "type" to mean "name",
essentially.  I think Evan has hit the bull's-eye here. 

Are we making progress? -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Peter Piatko <piatko@r...>
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by thread: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread