Re: limits of the generic
[Arjun Ray]"Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...> wrote: | [Arjun Ray] |> In what sense are namespaces (as defined in the Rec) "generic"? | I said "generic" because namespaces apply to all the specializations | (at least, those that make use of them), but the details of the | namespaces and what they denote can be specialized. Well, that's a peculiar statement, too. Weren't namespaces supposed to be (the essential component of) a generalization to multiple "vocabularies" in a single document? Would we want a specialized way to generalize, or would we want a generic way to generalize? Or, are you saying, multiple vocabularies are a specialization of single vocabularies, and therefore any method to accomplish that, or even to appear to accomplish that - such as namespaces - is generic? [Tom P] More or less. We started from XML 1.0. There all names had equal standing and were to be treated the same. There could be name collisions, and the main way you could distinguish between names from different vocabularies were by munging the names or by adding attributes that said what the vocabulary was. Other conventions could be imagined, and so could ways to change or extend the xml machinery to help support vocabularies. I view the current namespaces as being basically a standardized way to mung the names. Instead of saying <arjun_a src='xxx'> or <a vocab='arjun' src='xxx'> we say <arjun:a src='xxx'> and add the URI that the prefix is an alias for. Out of a universe of possible approaches we select one. The way I look at it, that is a constraint or specialization, even though it allows one to distinguish between vocabularies. 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