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

Re: Vocabulary Combination

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 20:38:42 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3ED65B5E.6020600@p...>
• References: <ab7bdvs3gol4j4trlefsiq6g4bfbaou70f@4...> <3ED5C2E7.4060805@p...> <gbjcdv80mdhn78c8egd27ltqmndcf64kin@4...> <3ED65B5E.6020600@p...>

Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray wrote:
|> Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote:

|>| Any rule that handled the book/html case would fall apart in the face 
|>| of XSLT/XSLFO.
|> 
|> The general problem is the same.
| 
| Not really. 

Yes really.

| One is a code/literal problem. The other is a "reuse these semantics" 
| problem. 

What is this "reuse these semantics" problem?  Once again, this is not
about what names could mean.

| They are quite different which is why there is no general semantics 
| for embedding namespaces.

The notion that XSLT "needs" namespaces is the same delusion.

| [XSLT, WSDL, RDF etc] ascribe their own semantics to the syntactic 
| convention of "foreign namespaces".

That is precisely what I mean by DWIMming: you are setting "rules" for
"others", not just for "yourself".  

| If BookML were formally defined then the formal definition should tell 
| you how to handle PCDATA in the extraction of the implicit XHTML 
| document.

Yes, we know this.  That's how classical AFs work, for example (using a
validation schema to drive parsing).  But once again, I'm not concerned
with schema-driven parsing.  I'm concerned with markup to isolate that
which could be validated if someone wanted (but validation is *not*
necessarily the purpose of the discrimination achieved by parsing.)

| But the simple answer is you cannot tell how to segment namespaced 
| fragments just by relying on the semantics defined in the Namespaces 
| specification. 

Correct.  The spec is silent on this, and thus useless for the general
problem of vocabulary combination *by syntax*.

| You must also rely on the rule defined by your vocabulary.

Nope.  That's a myth too.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Next by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Previous by thread: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Next by thread: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread