[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
Ron Bourret wrote: > What confuses me about all of this is that, if you don't tie a name in a > namespace to a single semantic concept -- which people seem loathe to do > -- what is the point of having namespaces? That is, if a URI + local > name can identify two different concepts, why did we add the URI? I think of namespaces more in terms of ownership. I can own two elements with the same expanded name and process them differently based on their context. Another person is also free to use "local element types" in their namespace. Likewise, another part of my application can use a different namespace. Granted, there is a pretty fine distinction between "another part of my application" and "another part of my document." This concept of "ownership" is a flimsy one, but it has served me well. The real lesson to be learned is that Namespaces can be used in the way you describe and Namespaces can be used in other ways, such as the way I describe. Technically, since we have well-formedness, we should embrace the flexibility of the specification, not for the sake of mere flexibility but because of the variety of existing practice. Evan Lenz XYZFind Corp.
|
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
|