xml-dev - Re: XHTML and the Three Namespaces

[Matthew Gertner <matthew@praxis.cz>]

> There is no reason why something that is uniquely identified can have only
> one definition.  Architectural forms are a classic tool for describing this
> situtation in markup, and in 'reality' there are many many many many many
> many cases where you can have multiple definitions, formal or otherwise,
> for the same uniquely identified thing.  (Don't get me going into
> epistemology, please...)

I guess I am misreading the implication that architectural forms allow
you to provide multiple content models for a single element type, right?
How then do they provide multiple definitions for something that is
uniquely identified? It seems to me that precisely the opposite is true:
they allow you to share a single definition (in terms of a given element
form) among multiple element types with different identities.

Matt

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)