Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
 Tim, > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@t...] > Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 6:05 PM > To: xml-dev@l... > Subject: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters. > > > At 05:19 PM 24/08/01 -0700, Evan Lenz wrote: > >if what you mean by > >"element types are global" is that there is always a one-to-one > >correspondence between an element name and a content model. > > Ron, is this what you mean? Has anyone ever argued that there > should be a 1-to-1 linkage between name and content model (or > any other set of semantics)? > A DTD establishes a 1-to-1 linkage between an element name and a content model, as well you know. A schema (without local elements) establishes a 1-to-1 linkage between an element name and a complexType. You can munge this in a out-of-band way by playing with the DTD or Schema, but certainly in the context of a single validation, there is such a linkage. If you are validating Ron is right, or right with the slight suggestions I've made. If, on the other hand, you are in the well-formed world the, yes, namespaces only help create vocabularies, but you're free to assemble documents from those vocabularies any way you want - there's no content model. But don't dis the validators. > >#2 was never true for me in the first place. In fact, I > would consider the > >use of namespaces to be orthogonal to the use of local element types. > > Yes! Anyone disagree? > I'm not Evan means what you think he means, as he later agrees that local names should not be in a namespace, which you seem to vehemently disagree with. In any case, namespaces are just a mechanism which can be used in a variety of ways. I believe the use of namespaces is related to what you're using them for. In particular, I believe they were intended to help disambiguate things, to uniquely identify things. If you are working with Schemas, rather than in the well-formed world, then namespaces should be used to disambiguate the kinds of things you can define with a Schema. > >Yes, and so it should, and so they should. In my world, > types and names are > >not necessarily the same thing. > > I agree. Unfortunately, XML 1.0 uses "type" to mean "name", > essentially. I think Evan has hit the bull's-eye here. > > Are we making progress? -Tim However, Schemas and DTDs link names and types. If you're also using namespaces with a Schema, shouldn't the namespacing help elucidate those links? Matthew 
|
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
|
|||||||||
