[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home]
[Reply To This Message]
Re: Looking for an example of a name colliision
- To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
- Subject: Re: Looking for an example of a name colliision
- From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2003 04:21:14 +0000
- In-reply-to: <3ED96CA6.CDE85967@b...>
- References: <3ED5B096.9080102@t...> <3ED6062E.4080403@b...> <014f01c326ba$5d609890$b6f5d3ce@L565> <3ED860C6.5060207@d...> <3ED8C926.93C26E7F@b...> <3ED8D0B8.DCCE9F9C@f...> <3ED8E030.DEC3C2ED@b...> <3ED8E195.E5BE14EB@b...> <3ED8E9AE.92D6BB4@f...> <3ED8EF7A.E4AE9A12@b...> <3ED8F5D7.26216A0F@f...> <3ED96568.1B67FF80@b...> <28pidv0jqhmue4hfn6ff16o0tf1ldjnbh1@4...> <3ED96CA6.CDE85967@b...>
"Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...> wrote:
|> in any document using the a1 vocabulary, how can "StateCode" in the
|> sense of the a2 vocabulary be used? Well, just use it!
| If the 2 schemas (agency 1 and agency 2) shared the same namespace
| (perhaps an overall "superagency" namespace), then name collision would
Only if (a) the combined schema insisted on using the same names as is
*and* (b) insisted on "GI only" as the only basis for discrimination.
To enable (a), one has merely to abandon (b). It's a fallacy anyway
(deriving from the more basic fallacy that vocabulary specific names must
somehow always occur in syntactically visible positions.)
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
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