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

RE: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets

• To: "'Anne Thomas Manes'" <atmanes@g...>
• Subject: RE: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:10:35 +0100
• Cc: "'Mukul Gandhi'" <mukul_gandhi@y...>,<xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <bf414ee6050821151476356e6c@m...>
• Thread-index: AcWmnaIfU6GNBtq+Qo2imH1DB71tpgABwUjA

> If you go with the reasoning that elements with no namespace are
> elements in the namespace with no name, then the following two
> elements would be the same kind of element, when obviously they are
> not:
> 
> <a>pi</a>
> 
> <a>
>   <b>3.14156</b>
> </a>
> 

I don't follow your reasoning. What about:

<a xmlns="urn:one">pi</a>
 
<a xmlns="urn:one">
  <b>3.14156</b>
</a>

Are these the same "kind of element"?

I don't recognise the concept "kind of element". In your example the two
elements have the same name, just as in my example. They also (as far as one
can tell) have different schema types, just as in my example. The only
difference is that there's a social convention whereby a named namespace has
someone responsible for defining the meaning of names within the namespace,
whereas the unnamed namespace is a free-for-all. But both are sets of names,
and the social conventions play no part in the architecture.

Michael Kay

• References:
  • Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
    • From: Anne Thomas Manes <atmanes@g...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Next by Date: Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Previous by thread: Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Next by thread: Re: Can we treat XML elements and attributes as sets
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread