[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: A multi-step approach on defining object-orientednatureof
John Cowan wrote: > Joe English scripsit: > > > (Actually, I would go one step further and argue that > > any XML vocabulary which is not designed to be mixed > > with elements from other vocabularies ought not to use > > namespaces at all. There are valid arguments against > > this position, of course.) > > I hold that it is inappropriate to label a namespace "Not to be > combined with others"; names in namespaces are resources for > constructing document (types). I think that's more or less in agreement with what I believe. The main reason for using namespace names in a vocabulary is so that it can be with other vocabularies to form a document type [*]. On the other hand, if a document type contains only words from a single vocabulary designed specifically for that document type and for no others, there's no reason to use namespaces at all. [*] "document type" in the SGML sense. I'm not sure what the accepted XML term for this concept is, or even if there is one. --Joe English jenglish@f...
|
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
|