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

Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:42:13 -0700
• In-reply-to: <200208220045.UAA15481@m...>
• References: <200208220045.UAA15481@m...>

John Cowan wrote:

> Joe English scripsit:
>
> > (Actually, I would go one step further and argue that
> > any XML vocabulary which is not designed to be mixed
> > with elements from other vocabularies ought not to use
> > namespaces at all.  There are valid arguments against
> > this position, of course.)
>
> I hold that it is inappropriate to label a namespace "Not to be
> combined with others"; names in namespaces are resources for
> constructing document (types).


I think that's more or less in agreement with what I believe.

The main reason for using namespace names in a vocabulary
is so that it can be with other vocabularies to form a document
type [*].  On the other hand, if a document type contains only
words from a single vocabulary designed specifically for that
document type and for no others, there's no reason to use
namespaces at all.


[*] "document type" in the SGML sense.  I'm not sure what the
    accepted XML term for this concept is, or even if there is one.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof DOM
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>

• References:
  • Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Next by Date: XForms: New & Last WD
• Previous by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof DOM
• Next by thread: Re: A multi-step approach on definingobject-orientednatureof DOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread