Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: David Megginson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 08:15:33 -0500 (EST)
Sean B. Palmer writes:
> <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" />
> It has often been siad that the most useful characteristic of having a
> unique name for XML is simply that it is therfore unique.
> The above example is an XHTML div element. But how do we know it is XHTML?
> It has the unique XHTML namespace... but how does that tell us it is
How could anything tell software what anything means without human
intervention? At some point, a human (programmer, operator, or
what-have-you) has to tell the system that something, somewhere,
represents a concept that we'll designate "XHTML" and that the system
has to take or avoid certain actions as a result. No computer on
earth could figure that out itself from first principles; heck, no
computer on earth can even understand first principles.
Meaning always starts and ends with human beings.
> So tell me, how do we know that the above is an XHTML div element,
> and does it actually matter if it is or it isn't? What I mean is
> "is it alright to simply have the property of uniqueness in this
> case?" If so, then what about:-
> <myelement xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" />
> Or even better:-
> <myelement xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
> <div> </div>
There's a second property of authority and ownership that is a
prerequisite for uniqueness. The idea is that no one but the URI's
owner has the authority to invent and define new names in the
Namespace designated by the URI. If that condition is not met, the
names cannot be guaranteed unique, even at a particular moment.
> Remember that this needs to be a practical debate: how useful would
> an HTML processor (read: browser) find it to have an XHTML
> namespace in all HTML documents? How about the same question for an
> XML parser? How about for a Semantic Web engine?
> For the record: I think that an HTML processor could jsut
> "recognize" the xmlns. An XML processor would just say "well, it's
> unique", and an SW engine would try to dereference it.
1. Applications (i.e. the browser)
As you suggest, XML applications (like XHTML browsers) will generally
recognize Namespaces (or specific Namespace-qualified names) because
they have been provided by humans to the program, either by
hard-coding or by some kind of interactive session. Applications also
need to have a policy for what to do when unrecognized names (or whole
Namespaces) appear -- skip the tags but process the content, skip the
whole element, report an error, etc. etc.
A good example is the XSL stylesheet, which may have processing rules
built in both for xhtml:div and for tei:div -- the Namespaces allow
the XSL processor to tell the two apart, and to file the correct rules
for the correct element. That's really all Namespaces were ever meant
2. XML Processors
The job of XML processors is to pass the Namespace-qualified names on
to applications; they don't need to interpret them in any way, even to
recognize the fact that they are unique. They may, of course, check
that the URIs are syntactically correct, etc.
3. Semantic Web Engine
Yes, Virginia, there is a Semantic Web. A little bit of it exists in
each of us ...
Seriously, behind the whole Semantic Web thing all you'll find is a
lot of subtyping -- if an SW program finds a foo:bar element, it is
supposed to look through a whole bunch of ancestor schemas until it
discovers a supertype of foo:bar that it recognizes, then act on the
foo:bar element as if it were an instance of its supertype.
As an OO programmer who has not been asleep for a decade, I find it
amusing that the SW people are chasing after the kind of deep
inheritance that modern OO programmers are trained to avoid by using
aggregation, decorators, etc.
Anyway, your question is what an SW processor would do -- somehow, it
would find a schema for each Namespace (I seem to recall that XML
Schemas provided an attribute for that purpose) and then would
download the four schemas referred to by that schema, then the four
schemas referred to by each of those, etc., until the ninth or tenth
level when the system broke down trying to download and parse 4^10 or
so schemas to try to interpret a single XML document. Of course,
that's assuming that none of the schemas was unavailable or
maliciously altered because of security breaches at any one of the
hundreds of different hosts being accessed.
All the best,
David Megginson firstname.lastname@example.org