[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: james anderson <James.Anderson@mecomnet.de>
- To: XML Developers' List <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 19:01:13 +0100
? Where the original note says:
> What if I want to create a schema specifying that (for my set of
> documents) an html:p element may contain a tei:foreign element, or a
> docbook:Trademark element in addition to the regular HTML elements?
>
> What if I want to create a schema specifying that (for my set of
> documents) an html:p element may *not* contain an html:font element?
>
> It doesn't make sense to have to create a new and different namespace
> for either of these -- I'm still using the individual elements in
> mostly the same way.
is the reader to understand that both "peculiarities" would hold at once? hold
"universally" in a given processing environment? that is, it's not a matter of
wishing to present two documents, each with with a different specification for
<html>:p .
david@megginson.com wrote:
>
> james anderson writes:
>
> > In particular, I would presume that the "html" in mr megginson's
> > note is literally a prefix term and that the reference is to the
> > qualified and not the universal name.
>
> Not at all -- I used the "html:p" simply as shorthand for something
> like
>
> http://www.w3.org/Profiles/voyager-strict + p
>
> (By the way, I'd like to note that I strongly dislike the idea of
> having three separate HTML namespaces as proposed in the Voyager spec
> [1]; after all, an HTML <a> is an HTML <a> is an HTML <a>, whether
> you're using the loose, strict, or frameset version of HTML).
>
But, ... as soon as the content model changes - as would appear to be the case
from the variations, for example, in the respective %block entities, then the
respective schemas describe respective elements which do not meet the
class/type conformity requirement set out below. The distinct namespaces thus
seem quit appropriate here.
>
> > This leads to the question of whether a processor / an application
> > can expect a universal name to truly always describe the same
> > thing. This question is distinct from how the description of the
> > thing is located (ie whether the uri locates a schema).
>
> To the same extent, I think, that a Java program can expect
> org.xml.sax.DocumentHandler to truly always describe the same class
> (i.e. not perfectly, but close enough for jazz).
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
