• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Compound processing
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:03:02 -0800
• References: <200201231842.NAA10220@m...>

Mark Baker wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> For a compound document including XHTML & SVG, we could activate a
> "XHTML summarizer" for the XHTML content, and a separate "SVG
> summarizer" for the SVG content.  The end result is a summarized
> version of the whole document.  Right?

Only if the two vocabularies are designed to work in this way. If the
outside vocabulary has an element that says:
"<ignore_everything_inside_here_for_summary_purposes>" then the internal
summarizer should not be run. Or it might say
"<summarize_everything_in_here_backwards>". An even worse case (this is
the XSLT case) is where the inner element changes the interpretation of
the outer.

It would be nice to believe that these cases won't happen but if there
is no specification out there describing how you are supposed to use
namespace and how not to, then what's wrong with them?

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Compound processing
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• References:
  • Compound processing
    • From: Mark Baker <distobj@a...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Next by Date: Re: Strategies for a lowly XML document
• Previous by thread: Re: Compound processing
• Next by thread: Re: Compound processing
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread