[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <email@example.com>
- To: Richard Tobin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 10:56:55 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Tobin [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 3:45 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
> >OK, I think I get it. Local element types allow the <line>
> >element to have different validation rules depending on
> >whether it's a child of <matt:music>, <matt:graphics> or
> ><matt:text>. Clearly something that DTD's can't do but is
> >I have a question. With schemas, can I arrange for the
> ><matt:line> (note it's in a namespace) element to be validated
> >differently depending on whether it's a child of <matt:music>,
> ><matt:graphics> or <matt:text>? -Tim
> Yes, these are exactly the two cases we're arguing about. A local
> element declaration inside the type of matt:music
> <element name="line" form="unqualified"> ...
> locally declares the element line (in no namespace), whereas
> <element name="line" form="qualified"> ...
> locally declares the element matt:line. The default value for "form"
> can be set with the elementFormDefault attribute, and the default
> default is unqualified. The same goes for attributes, where (in my
> opinion) unqualified is a lot more natural.
> There are two points in dispute: whether local elements are good at
> all, and whether unqualified ones are (no doubt there is also a view
> that *only* unqualified ones are good, but I haven't noticed anyone
> arguing that).
Actually, while I've argued as to why making local elements unqualified is a
good thing from the point of view of what local elements are, no one has
given a similar argument for why local elements should be qualified. The
arguments in favor of qualifying them have been simply "I don't like
unqualified elements because I can't use the namespace to uniquely identify
the element" - when namespaces fail to uniquely identify different local
elements anyway. Or they've been "I don't like local elements, and I
especially don't want them to be unqualified", which scarcely grapples with
what a local element is. I would like to see an argument as to why they
should be qualified from first principles as I've argued for them to be