Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 10:58:31 -0500
james anderson writes:
> > > 2. if the schema is present, should the processor permit local
> > > additions to the namespace, that is the introduction of names which
> > > are not present in the external definition? should the processor
> > > permit redefinition of existing names from the namespace?
> > This would go against the basic principle of namespaces (globalisation
> > and uniquification of names), since two documents could create
> > different extensions to the same namespace. ...
> which is ok, if the issue is architectural forms, but bad if one is talking
> about namespaces...
I'm not certain that I understand your point -- a document cannot
invent new architectural forms for an existing base architecture.
It is true that since architectural forms allow multi-generational
inheritance, you can invent a new base architecture that is derived
from an existing base architecture (just as you can derive a new class
from an existing one in Java).
All the best,
David Megginson email@example.com
Microstar Software Ltd. firstname.lastname@example.org
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)