Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word

[Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>]

 From: "Evan Lenz" <elenz@xyzfind.com>
 
> Rick Jelliffe wrote:
> > Yes, if you want to reuse local names, you need as many namespaces
> > as you have re-uses.  That's the way it should be: no local names, no
> > local types.
> 
> Rick, I think there is a slippery slope between what you're arguing and an
> even more restrictive use of markup than what DTDs allow. DTDs let me put
> the same element name in different contexts. If you want a purer grasp on
> "meaning" given only the ulabel, a surer bet would be to never use the same
> element name in more than one place. Then you can be sure that the content
> models will not diverge based on their context, now or in the future.

Red herring.

The route of requiring some processor to process a
marked up document and add properties which can be used for subsequent processing has been tried before: ISO SGML LINK feature (which found no success, in part due to the limited selection mechanism), ISO Architectural Forms (which found limited success, in part due to the limited selection mechanism), and XSLT (which has found success with the rich selection mechanism of XPaths.)  

W3C Schemas has a weak selection mechanism for types: just use the parent.  It is a route that has been tried before and not succeeded.  In fact, LINK probably allowed a more sophisticated selection mechanism than XS--it allowed you to link in (e.g., fixed) attributes depending on whether the a child was the first child of a parent even AFAIR.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe