[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: Ronald Bourret <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 01:02:14 -0700
Tim Bray wrote:
> At 05:19 PM 24/08/01 -0700, Evan Lenz wrote:
> >if what you mean by
> >"element types are global" is that there is always a one-to-one
> >correspondence between an element name and a content model.
> Ron, is this what you mean? Has anyone ever argued that there
> should be a 1-to-1 linkage between name and content model (or
> any other set of semantics)?
This is what I meant, but Evan's well-formedness example pretty much
makes a mockery of it. (However, I do believe this falls out of the use
of DTDs -- that is, there is a 1-to-1 linkage between name and content
model in valid documents.)
> >Yes, and so it should, and so they should. In my world, types and names are
> >not necessarily the same thing.
> I agree. Unfortunately, XML 1.0 uses "type" to mean "name",
> essentially. I think Evan has hit the bull's-eye here.
Without getting too pedantic -- OK, I am getting too pedantic, but I'd
like to point out that this is less than clear -- I think XML 1.0 uses
type to mean both type and name. For example, substitute the word "name"
for "type" in the following. Some make sense and some don't.
1) Type means name: "The Name in the document type declaration must
match the element type of the root element."
2) Type might mean name and might mean type: "Each element has a type,
identified by name, sometimes called its "generic identifier" (GI), and
may have a set of attribute specifications."
3) Type means type: "Definition: An element type has element content
when elements of that type must contain only child elements (no
character data), optionally separated by white space (characters
matching the nonterminal S)."
> Are we making progress? -Tim