Re: limits of the generic
[Arjun Ray] "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...> wrote: | Namespaces alter the generic pattern but are still pretty generic. I find this statement quite inscrutable. In what sense are namespaces (as defined in the Rec) "generic"? [Tom P] 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. This is much like providing for element names in xml of sgml - the generic spec sets forth hwo to construct names but leaves it to the specialized uses to refine and constrain. Even though I labeled namespaces as a generic addition to the generic nature of the original xml rec, I certainly agree that they constrain that rec. I am saying that they do it at a fairly non-specific level. [Arjun] What is generic about a device that does not allow values to be shared by names from different taxonomies? (As in, why had it to be xlink:href *versus* html:src?) What is generic about an approach calling for extra elements without any determinate notion of opacity, that also need to be kept away from pretty printers lest the whitespace gum up the "careful" coding (tags jammed together to box the shared value)? | It is like tightening the tolerances on screws. No, it's like saying that screws must work for all materials. [Tom P] I think you are articulating one of my points, that the way more specialised or contraining specs work with the more generic ones is very important but also it is non-trivial to arrive at a good solution. Continuing the analogy I introduced in my earlier post, it might have made sense to have namespaces be a augmenting spec or profile that could be picked up by those who need it but not everyone. With SAX we can use it that way (since we do not have to use namespaces), and almost with xslt (we have to use namespaces in the stylesheet but not in the document being transformed). This seems pretty good to me. The only thing we really cannot do is to use a colon in a name because most parsers will assume that namespaces are supposed to be in effect. So I would argue that, from the point of view of augmenting the basic generic spec (xml 1.0), namespaces did pretty well. This is completely different from accepting the engineering design, BTW. Everyone can decide for themselves if XML Schemas, XPATH 2.0, and xslt 2.0 have that same quality. 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