[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Looking for an example of a name colliision
John Cowan <cowan@m...> wrote: | Arjun Ray scripsit: |> A control attribute is all the moral equivalent needed. | | As I said: a reserved name of some sort. But not directly within XSLT. There would have to be an XML (or parser level) mechanism to identify the control attribute. This is, in fact, an issue fundamental to vocabulary mapping, and the reason why a mapping mechanism is an inescapable necessity within the formalism, *even* in the trivial case of an effective identity mapping of a single vocabulary. (That is, even this fact has to be declared somehow.) Note, for instance, how my reworking of Tim's example used {hn, ha, ht} and {xn, xa, xt} as control attributes - these were arbitrary names (in the sense that the html and books vocabularies wouldn't have to either define or identify them) and thus completely up to the document author to specify. Their semantics came from the <?xml-map?> pseudo declaration, which was intended as a parser level construct, just like regular declarations. The point of this declaration is to identify exactly how a vocabulary maps to the document structure. This *could* be a point-by-point identity mapping, in which case no control attributes need be identified (with an obvious defaulting procedure), but really need not be, in which case control attributes would have to be present. This interpretation of the common and base of a single vocabulary generalizes uniformly, because it answers the question: How does *any* (declared) vocabulary map to the structure of a document? So, reverting to the issue at hand, which was one of differentiating evaluable XSLT expressions from literals. At the parsing level, this is merely a matter of the markup *asserting* one or the other (without regard to what a GI, examined in isolation, might lead one to think). The control attribute used for this distinction need merely be declared in the process by which it becomes known that the XSLT vocabulary applies *at all* to the document - the relevant <?xml-map?> for the XSLT vocabulary itself. I think it's worth reading Eliot Kimber's explanation of all this: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=34E9CBC9.401B6BB0@i... If you ignore the parts that tie AFs strongly to schemas (*not* necessary here) and take on board merely the demonstration that vocabularies need to be *identified*, the necessity of name mapping should become clearer.
|
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
|