Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Based on some of the recent discussions here I have been mulling over the exact same thing. As you and others probably know I am a type guy as I came to XML from programming not SGML... but I am being slowly swayed. For example-- this was my thought process on namespaces and Pip the Golden retriever: The whole purpose of namespaces is this: to distinguish two similar elements. <rambling> For example in FurnitureML a <table> is a peice of furniture but in XHTML it is a set of tabular data. So the collision is that the names *look* exactly the same. So for the golden retriever: he is not retrieving an actual object (value) but a symbolic representation of that object (reference) -- the question is on Type not on Name. So the symbolic naming is the problem. <table> and <table> are the same-- it is their children or Type that is not. The type of an element speaks to its actual real-world representation. This can be expressed through the child pattern but won't always (for example <div> in MathML and XHTML) </rambling> So if we eliminate the notion of reference (to a real world idea) and deal only with pattern or value in the actual document is there some way to eliminate namespaces entirely and still mix "vocabularies"? Jeff Rafter Defined Systems http://www.defined.net XML Development and Developer Web Hosting
|
