Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Chris Maden <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:32:24 -0500
> "namespace:gi" element type names are unsuitable for several reasons:
> Why are people worried about writing specs to solve a problem that
> already has good, working, available solutions?
The problem (as I see it) is not one of including pieces of existing
documents, nor of structural validation. The main reason for
namespaces is semantic inheritance. I want to write a scientific
research paper quickly. HTML has the overall document structure and
components that I need; MathML has equations; CML has chemical
formulŠ. I should be able to say that I'm using those things,
associate stylesheets, and have my browser know that <html:a> should
be styled with the "a" rule from the HTML stylesheet.
It should be *possible* to create a DTD to which such a document
complies, but I am not as interested in automatic validation of a
namespace document. The interrelational issues are, I think, too
complex to solve; in the example above, I would need to change the
text-containing HTML elements' content models to include chemical and
mathematical markup, and maybe allow HTML markup in MathML theorems.
Pushing selected information into the content models is too ugly.
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)