Re: Re: URIs, concrete (was Re: Un-ask the
[Norman Gray] > > The point is that namespaces imply a generic transformation which > removes everything but the elements and attributes in a particular > namespace. The resulting document can then be processed in a generic > way (I don't need to point out to you that this is an AF-style view). > There are three kinds of things you coulld do with namespaced names in xml. 1) Distinguish otherwise identical names within one document, like "your:truck" and "my:truck". We would barely need a namespace Rec for this one. 2) Allow you to apply syntactical rules for a namespaced element that are specified in another document. We can do this with present day XML Namespaces by, for example, validating with XML Schema. 3) Allow you to apply semantic rules for a namespaced element that are specified in another document. 95% of the arguments in these threads are about the semantics, but XML is about syntax, not semantics. So can we just drop all these other arguments, please? If someone wants to put up a set of recommended semantic practices for xml, that is fine and can even be useful, just like best practices for code layout and commenting can be extremely useful. Just remember what you are doing, it is not about the Recs. At least Simon has got to the point where he is outright urging a set of best practices - Hi, Simon, glad you got there! Now, are there any residual syntactical issues here? Perhaps, just barely, the default namespace might remain, but I really think that is purely semantic. Cheers, Tom P
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format