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

Re: Why not PIs for namespace declarations?

  • From: Arjun Ray <aray@q...>
  • To: XML-DEV <xml-dev@i...>
  • Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 00:06:06 -0500 (EST)

Re: Why not PIs for namespace declarations?


On Fri, 24 Dec 1999, james anderson wrote:
> Arjun Ray wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Dec 1999, David Brownell wrote:

> > The "requirement" that had to be met, apparently, was that the
> > syntactic device announcing a "local" lexical scope had to be 
> > "locally" available itself (thus ruling out, e.g., stuff in the
> > internal subset that would be indefinitely "far away".)
> 
> I surmise that "stuff" here refers to a PI which would have preceeded
> or followed the respective element tag. 

Not just a PI.  ArchForms, for instance, work with attributes which have
to be declared in <!ATTLIST...> declarations.  (New-fangled PIs are one
way of working around the fact that declarations can't appear within the
instance.)  The *general* idea - to use "special" attributes - can be
considered well-accepted; the issue is how these special attributes are to
be recognized.

> > There are only two natural scoping constructs in XML: elements and
> > marked sections.  

> As XML had, to that point in time, neither a storage nor a processing
> model, any arguments regarding "natural" whould have been most
> suspect.

Natural in the syntactic sense: both "start" and "end" lexically separate
and explicit.  "Natural scoping constructs", not "natural scopes":)

> A claim, for example, that the present encoding does not place the
> encoding for the namespace binding "indefinitely far away" from the
> encoding for the respective element type depends on the presumption of
> a procesing structure akin to that proposed in the recent strawman
> sax2. Namely one in which interning the type name is deferred until
> the attributes have been read. A PI encoding with a lexical scope
> covering the immediately succeeding element would not have made this
> presumption.

Yes.  The inherent chicken-and-egg problem is normally solved by
separating declaration and use (and sometimes the declaration can be
"indefinitely far away" enough to have to be assumed - e.g. in some
block-structured languages, a new block *mandates* a new lexical scope, so
there's no need to "declare" this fact.)


Arjun



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)



PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!

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.
Email
First Name
Last Name
Company
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.