Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Problem is, when people made that claim, they were met with a chorus of "spec doesn't say that; don't go beyond the spec lest ye become like Microsoft" and so we redo the argument twice a year here. I think what Steve said was about right: a light single point of contact. But, with namespaces, we hide a property in the code and expose it in the data only if we want to (really, in the text). We specify it in the instance. A #FIXED attribute specifies it in the DTD or schema and only exposes it in the instance if we want to, or because, the DTD isn't processed reliably. Well-formed processing builds in unreliability just as the use of internal subsets builds in unpredictability. len -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@r...] Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 1:31 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Re: Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone) On Friday 25 January 2002 03:22 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > You go a bit further and require multiple semantics and that > the instance should be able to tell the system which semantics > it can be used with. Some people would claim that this is what namespaces do. I don't think the document is the place to specify the sets of applicable semantics.
|
