Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk (Peter Murray-Rust)
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 15:44:43 GMT
In message <firstname.lastname@example.org> "W. Eliot Kimber" writes:
> At 09:52 AM 5/22/97 GMT, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> >The rate of this reaction is given by
> ><A HREF="eqn1.xml">equation 1</A>
> >where eqn1.xml might be written in MathML.
> There is *NOT* a name space problem in this case. The document "eqnl.xml"
> is *parsed* outside the scope of the document that references (it is
> semantically and functionally identical to a SUBDOC reference in normal
> SGML). Once the document is parsed, the result of that parsing is
> combined, by application-specific means, with the document tree of the
> referencing document. At that point, things like content model constraints
> are irrelevant and there are *NO* name space problems.
Thanks for clarifying this. Please treat me as the archetypal newcomer
who means well.
Understood. This is in fact what I do, but I was slightly misled
in the draft by the phrase under 'EMBED':
the 'designated resource should be embedded for the purposes of display or
processing in the body of the resource and at the location where the traversal
started'. I (mis)read that to mean that the spec required the remote
resource to be emebedded and then processed (i.e. parsed).
I also share your concern with the likelihood of linking to a document
without a DOCTYPE which may have tags in common and where there is a
possibility of confusion. Since you point out that 'embedding' is really a
pointer, then the application can keep the namespaces separate, though it
could be easy to make mistakes.
> One confusion factor here is that, unlike SGML today (but not in the near
> future), if an XML file has no DOCTYPE declaration it can be used as either
> an external text entity (parsed in the context of its reference) or as a
> document entity (parsed in isolation), and you can't tell by looking at the
> entity which it was intended to be. In a very real sense, XML is saying
> that all external entities are either subdocuments or documents, even
> though XML doesn't include the formal notion of subdocument as in SGML.
Exactly. And it is possible to see cases where a given file is used in
both ways (a) included through entities and (b) pointed to by LINK.
[... thanks for the explanation of notation ...] I had not appreciated
the use of the NOTATION to flag PI-types and will adopt this.
Peter Murray-Rust, domestic net connection
Virtual School of Molecular Sciences
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To unsubscribe, send to email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (firstname.lastname@example.org)