Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote: > On Thursday 31 January 2002 05:43 pm, Steven R. Newcomb wrote: > > It's a simple fact that the generic identifier is just > > an attribute value, like all other attribute values, > > except that it's the value of the one-and-only nameless > > attribute. > > I'm entirely in agreement with this. You say "an element HAS-A gi", so > this is obviously an attribute of the object (as all names are > ultimately.... a rose by any other name...). > > I was surprised to get no reaction when I asserted that aplha-renaming > is *precisely* what I think namespace do... but this is one large part > of the reasoning. > It is not a simple fact at least if we are still talking about XML. XML 1.0 says that the _type_ of an element is its name or GI. Generally the 'type attribute' has a special place in the list of 'attributes', i.e. the "isa" link. So, not (element has-a GI) rather (element isa GI). The value, to me, of the namespace URI is that the "isa" link can traverse the web, which I find useful. I have no opinion about alpha-renaming, or how you might use that to traverse the web. In any case it is not typical to equate "isa" and "has-a" links and I suspect that if you do so, you will lose processing capabilities. Jonathan
|
