Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: james anderson <James.Anderson@mecomnet.de>
- To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:39:03 +0100
yes; agreement on all points.
mr. harold is not the only one who would have benefitted.
the only aspect of which i can comprehend, is the claim, that, being able to
bind the prefixes over a dtd would have broken the rule that namespaces should
not "change the validity of a given document". which claim is true, but which
i believe to be fundamentally misdirected.
it's an old argument.
Ronald Bourret wrote:
> james anderson wrote:
> > ? which of the "namespace aware" parsers will permit you to parse
> validate a
> > document for which partions of the dtd contain element declarations with
> > ambiguous names - without first modifying the dtd? i've yet to hear a
> > to the "ambiguous name" problem for xml-1.0/+ns conforming parsers.
> Good point -- it was unfair of me to blame the parsers here. It all seems
> rather obvious now:
> Q. Why were namespaces invented?
> A. To disambiguate duplicate names.
> Q. I have a DTD with duplicate names. How do I disambiguate them?
> A. Use namespaces.
> The only inobvious bit is that, because there is no way to declare
> namespaces in the DTD, you can't declare different default namespaces for
> different parts of the DTD, which would have solved Elliotte's problem
> rather neatly.
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)