[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: Enlightenmentvi
> -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] > Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 11:28 AM > To: Jonathan Borden; Fuchs, Matthew; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: > Enlightenmentvia avoiding the T-word) > > > > > > > Of course one define identical syntaxes with DTDs which > don't need to > invoke > > such "local" and "global" differentiations. I wonder what > the real need > for > > this complexity is? > > > > Let me restate this, because the point I am trying to make > has nothing to do > with the distinction between DTDs and XSDL or RELAXNG, and > everything to do > with how namespaces are used in XML documents. > > That should read: "Of course one can define identical > syntaxes with other > schema languages ( e.g. RELAXNG) which don't need to invoke > ..." The point > being here, that there is a distinction between the label > given to a pattern > of elements (e.g. the complexType name) and the name of the > element itself. > Yes, there is a distinction between complexType labes and element labels, but I'm not sure how that's relevant here. > In well-formed documents, there is only one root/document > element, so are > you suggesting that we call all elements which are not > allowed to be at the > top level "local"? That would be fine with me, but I would > hardly suggest > that all such elements be unqualified. That is a practice which makes no sense to me. That would be like having no namespaces at all. I understand that this > is not exactly > how -XSDL defines- "local element" but what I am trying to > get at is not how > such a term is defined in XSDL, but rather what the practical > meaning of > this term is. > How the term is defined in XSDL is _a_ practical meaning of this term, where the term is applicable to an aspect of the semantics of the element (can only appear in a particular context - and no schema author can validly allow it to appear elsewhere), and not to its appearance in an instance. I don't think calling all elements other than the root "local" is a practical meaning. A practical term would be to call elements one of root, interior or leaf, following standard terminology for trees. I really am talking only about XSDL local elements - I think the traditional notion of element corresponds to what in XSDL terminology are global elements, local elements are something different, and it is a good idea to distinguish them so as not to clobber applications in strange ways. 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
|