Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.

[Evan Lenz <elenz@xyzfind.com>]

Peter Piatko wrote:
> "...In this example, there are three occurrences of the name title within
> markup, and the name alone clearly provides insufficient information to
> allow correct processing by a software module."
>
> The implication of this sentence is that the type and the identifier
should
> have a 1-1 mapping.

I think that section is non-normative for a reason. I imagine that it's
mainly to help justify the reasoning behind why attributes do not inherit
the default namespace. This implies a set of conventions, but it does not
mandate those conventions. I think the Namespaces syntax is sufficient as is
(many think it's far too sugary, let alone not sugary enough).

> (b) simplify (i.e.
> flatten) the interpretation of what namespaces are.

I've always had this "flattened" interpretation of Namespaces. This is
reflected in the design of my de facto schemas...

> Option (b) implies that an identifier might map to multiple types.  I
think
> the question boils down whether this ok or not.

...so I hope it's okay!

Evan Lenz
XYZFind Corp.