[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: Fri, 30 May 2003 20:55:53 +0000
• In-reply-to: <3ED7A9F6.3010706@y...>
• References: <ab7bdvs3gol4j4trlefsiq6g4bfbaou70f@4...> <3ED5C2E7.4060805@p...> <gbjcdv80mdhn78c8egd27ltqmndcf64kin@4...> <3ED65B5E.6020600@p...> <c9rcdvos4rkru5l9eg2rgu7ohiulif4fd9@4...> <3ED67CA3.6090001@t...> <l1vcdv06mou6sd3usof5enattb6h1ngqb1@4...> <3ED7A9F6.3010706@y...>

"J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray wrote:

|>| 1. avoiding collisions
|> 
|> A non-problem.
| 
| Really?

Yes.  The associative power of the attribute mechanism in SGML/XML is
enough to encode the necessary disambiguation information (without
violence to the atomicity of names qua strings.)   

| You probably know the XSLFO spec includes an element named
| instream-foreign-object, which is intended as a sort of hook
| for FO processors to provide functionality which may otherwise
| be awkward to provide in XSLFO.

Yes.  A "bridge" element, to use AF terminology.

| People have expectations about the environment and tools which
| handle their XML,

Indeed.  The tools rarely fail to reflect the assumptions of their
developers.

| Would you please elaborate why any of the developers and the users 
| of the tools mentioned above, possibly including the FO processor 
| writer, should see name collisions as non-problem?

It's a problem for tools that can't handle it, obviously.  It goes back to
the developers' assumptions being misconceived.

• 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...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: "J.Pietschmann" <j3322ptm@y...>

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