Re: Vocabulary Combination
Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote: | Arjun Ray wrote: |> Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote: |>| Any rule that handled the book/html case would fall apart in the face |>| of XSLT/XSLFO. |> |> The general problem is the same. | | Not really. Yes really. | One is a code/literal problem. The other is a "reuse these semantics" | problem. What is this "reuse these semantics" problem? Once again, this is not about what names could mean. | They are quite different which is why there is no general semantics | for embedding namespaces. The notion that XSLT "needs" namespaces is the same delusion. | [XSLT, WSDL, RDF etc] ascribe their own semantics to the syntactic | convention of "foreign namespaces". That is precisely what I mean by DWIMming: you are setting "rules" for "others", not just for "yourself". | If BookML were formally defined then the formal definition should tell | you how to handle PCDATA in the extraction of the implicit XHTML | document. Yes, we know this. That's how classical AFs work, for example (using a validation schema to drive parsing). But once again, I'm not concerned with schema-driven parsing. I'm concerned with markup to isolate that which could be validated if someone wanted (but validation is *not* necessarily the purpose of the discrimination achieved by parsing.) | But the simple answer is you cannot tell how to segment namespaced | fragments just by relying on the semantics defined in the Namespaces | specification. Correct. The spec is silent on this, and thus useless for the general problem of vocabulary combination *by syntax*. | You must also rely on the rule defined by your vocabulary. Nope. That's a myth too.
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