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

Re: limits of the generic

Re:  limits of the generic
"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? 

| 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.

That would be colonified names.  I can think of uses for the syntactic
device per se, but the namespaces bogosity - which tries to philosophize
on the prefix - is not one of them. :-) 
| 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.

I couldn't disagree more.  They cripple it.  Note that all the problems
with namespaces are precisely in the mulitple-vocabulary context.  Wow.

| 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.

There is no good solution when politics preordain the outcome.  The myth
simply will not die that namespaces were a "technical solution" of some
kind.  They were a year's worth of insensate babbling about "universal
names" and whatnot tacked onto a favored syntactic device that gave enough
in the way of warm fuzzy feelings in some influential quarters that they
simply had to have it.

| So I would argue that, from the point of view of augmenting the basic
| generic spec (xml 1.0), namespaces did pretty well. 

They've kept a lot of people busy, yes.;-)


Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!

Buy Stylus Studio Now

Download The World's Best XML IDE!

Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!

Don't miss another message! Subscribe to this list today.
First Name
Last Name
Subscribe in XML format
RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member
Stylus Studio® and DataDirect XQuery ™are products from DataDirect Technologies, is a registered trademark of Progress Software Corporation, in the U.S. and other countries. © 2004-2013 All Rights Reserved.