[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces
"W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...> wrote: | As a poetics of vocabulary application and control it is comprehensive, | elegant and efficient-- Well, there are some details I left out, but yes, comprehensiveness is easy here. Elegance, I would think, flows from the protean simplicity of the attribute mechanism - the name of the attribute dedicated to denoting a semantic association, and the value to carry a referent instantiation - especially when the referent is information of an externally fixed form (such as a predefined name!). Efficiency is a different matter though. Everyone rightly quails at the prospect of verbose markup. So, there's room to devise defaulting schemes ("scoping" is just a fancy word for minimization) at the cost of extra processing overhead in the parser-level module supporting all this, but there's no getting around the fact that at the level of "primitive" discrimination operations, something is being "said" at each start-tag. I might add that the principal difference between the schematic outlined here and classical ArchForms is the lack of any dependency on schema information. The defaulting scheme in AFs, for instance, relies on schema driven parsing ("auto-recognition of architectural names and content"), besides of course requiring the original document to be itself valid comprehensively with respect to some DTD. This is an unnecessarily strong coupling of vocabulary combination (which *can* be done through instance markup alone) with schema combination (which *is* a much harder problem.) | though it is not immediately concerned with ease of programmer's access | to the manipulation of XML Filters can be built on something as simple as SAX1. First, all names are atomic strings - no slicing and dicing. Second, support will be needed for tokenization of control strings to get the mappings into usable form. Third, the difference between this and SAX2-style namespace processing will probably take the form of associating a namespace constant (the "name" of the vocabulary itself) with *groups* of names - corresponding to the relevants set of GI+attributes reconstituted into vocabulary specific form - rather than individual names. Sort of like viewing each element as having potentially multiple interpretation contexts. And believe it or not, for generic or formal organizational purposes such as these, we could actually put colons to use, taking advantage of the far-sighted move to include it in XML as a name-start character. For instance, we could require conventionally that all control attributes have names starting with a colon, to indicate that they have significance for *parsing* only, and are not part of the semantic freight for any of the relvant vocabularies in the document. (And as a side note, we might consider the use of just ':' by itself as the conventionl name of the ID attribute!)
|
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
|