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

Re: patterns vs. identifiers

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:10:36 -0400
• In-reply-to: <021501c2479a$8db350f0$32f5d90c@c1980223a>

Jeff Rafter writes:
> So if we eliminate the notion of reference (to a real world idea) and
> deal only with pattern or value in the actual document is there some
> way to eliminate namespaces entirely and still mix "vocabularies"?

I think a strictly pattern-based approach would offer context - both
ancestor and descendant context - as an answer to that, though context
can occasionally be misleading or abused.  

A table which contains cells is likely a formatting tool, while a table
that specifies wood species and finish technique is likely furniture -
and might even contain a table of the other kind listing the options
available for that piece of furniture.

The code for this might not be easy, but I suspect it's well within the
capabilities of XPath/XSLT, Schematron, or perhaps RELAX NG.

I'm not certain that patterns alone are the answer to all problems.  On
the other hand, I worry that identifiers are being offered as a solution
that works formally, but is really painful in practice.


-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
  • Re: patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: patterns vs. identifiers
    • From: "Jeff Rafter" <jeffrafter@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML-Schema Help
• Next by Date: RE: patterns vs. identifiers
• Previous by thread: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Next by thread: Re: patterns vs. identifiers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread