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

Re: assigning semantics to XML, Re: Re: URIs,

• To: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Subject: Re: assigning semantics to XML, Re: Re: URIs,
• From: jborden@a...
• Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 23:12:04 +0000
• Cc: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>

Walter Perry wrote:
> jborden@a... wrote:
> 
> > Just to hammer this point again. There is no requirement to be different. An 
> XML Namespaces conformant application might or might not act differently and 
> still properly claim conformance. Said another way, even though the range of 
> interpretations are _not required_ to be the same, they might be.
> 
> So is it not then as I initially wondered, that in elaborating semantics through 
> the processing of attribute instances, the element to which an attribute is 
> attached may exert such influence that there is no discernible difference in the 
> semantic outcome of process, regardless of what namespace an attribute might or 
> might not be in? 

for example a template in a stylesheet _might be_

<xsl:template match="foo:bar[@baz | @*:baz]">

and treat the attribute "baz" the same as any namespace qualified attribute "ex:baz" ...

> Or again, in other cases of process, the attribute namespace 
> might be decisive and result in discernible differences in outcome? 

right so you might also do:

<xsl:template match="foo:bar[@baz]"> ...

<xsl:template match="foo:bar[@foo:baz]"> ...

<xsl:template match="foo:bar[@*:baz]"> ...

> Therefore 
> the sense in which Simon's suggestion is "wrong", as Tim asserts, is that it 
> violates a distinction maintained in the formalism of namespaces, but in the > terms in which it is offered (how to treat an attribute, presumably in 
> processing it), Simon's suggestion may often, in fact, be the best practice, 
> perhaps even the only practice actually
> processable in the instance.

Simon's distinction is not "wrong" it is just not "required". His recommendation would look like:

<xsl:template match="foo:bar[@baz | @foo:baz]"> ...
> 
> I began this by wondering whether the concept of  'in a namespace' had more than 
> evanescent effect upon attributes as processed, particularly as compared with 
> the influence exerted by an element because of the attribute's necessary 
> dependence on it. I am increasingly convinced that the 'namespace' qualities, or 
> namespace-derived properties of attributes cannot be identified in the general 
> case.

Correct in the "general case" the namespace name is there for a program to process as it wishes. One _might_ dereference a namespace URI and look for some information that one _could choose to_ apply to the processing of a piece of XML (perhaps if a namespace name represented itself as a RDDL document) but this _is not required_ of either the namespace nor of the processor. 

Jonathan

• Prev by Date: Open Source XML Schema Documentation Generator
• Next by Date: Re: URIs harmful
• Previous by thread: Re: assigning semantics to XML, Re: Re: URIs,
• Next by thread: Strip Soap namespace?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread