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

Re: More on namespaces...

• To: "xml-dev" <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: More on namespaces...
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 01:18:36 +0000
• In-reply-to: <003601c32e9a$c909a680$a000a8c0@SeairthA31>
• References: <003601c32e9a$c909a680$a000a8c0@SeairthA31>

"Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...> wrote:

| 1) Suppose you have a vocabulary that states that only <B> may be within
| <A>.  Now suppose you have another vocabulary with element <C>.  If one 
| were to do <ns1:A><ns1:B/><ns2:C/></ns1:A>, would the document still be 
| valid according to the first vocabulary?

I don't think this is a well-formed question.  It confuses documents with
document types.  The schema for a vocabulary defines a document type; how
a document type *applies* to any particular document is a separate issue.
Must this document type always apply point-by-point to the entirety of the
document?

If you say yes, then the answer is no, this document is not valid, because
by construction it has "foreign" material that the schema for vocabulary
ns1 does not account for.

If you say no, then the answer is yes, the document is valid in the sense
that it has a partition which meets all required constraints of the ns1
schema.

| 3) In one of the original posts of the recent thread, there was a sample
| document:

Which was taken from an article advocating namespaces:

 http://www.xml.com/pub/a/1999/01/namespaces.html

From the passage in that article introducing this very sample document:

: So let's set up a scenario: suppose XML.com wanted to start publishing 
: reviews of XML books. We'd want to mark the info up with XML, of course, 
: but we'd also like to use HTML to help beautify the display. Here's a 
: tiny sample of what we might do:

I thought there was a basis for "document views", but the author of the
article has since questioned this interpretation, so what the example is
really supposed to be illustrating must be something else.

| I am wondering if the real problem here is the way in which the 
| vocabularies are being mixed.  [...] I guess the point is...  in the
| original XML above, are we really trying to figure out how to separate 
| the vocabularies successfully, 

Apparently, this is "not useful", according to the author.

| or are we really seeing a case where the design is bad to start with?

Depends on what the design is intended to achieve, no?

| 4) Should a vocabulary be able to dictate how other vocabularies can be 
| used with it? 

No.  That way lies madness. 

• References:
  • More on namespaces...
    • From: "Seairth Jacobs" <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: xPath 2.0, XSLT 2.0 ... size increase over v1.0
• Next by Date: Re: XUL vs. XHTML 2.0/XForms 1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: More on namespaces...
• Next by thread: Re: More on namespaces...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread