[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: Jeff Lowery <email@example.com>
- To: "'Fuchs, Matthew'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,'Peter Piatko' <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:46:48 -0700
> It would be nice to coalesce
> xsi:type and namespacing.
Doesn't that tie namespaces to context? I though this was a Bad Thing:
> > Option (b) implies that an identifier might map to multiple types. I
> > the question boils down whether this ok or not.
> In the end, I think you have to allow it. My gut tells me that the
> alternative could get quite nasty. Besides, one of the nice things about
> XML is that it does let you do your own thing, even if that thing isn't
> always the best thing to do.
It is possible now to create two Schemas with the same targetNamespace that
attach the same global elements to different types (you just don't want to
use them in tandem). I think that is insanity, but nothing prevents or
admonishes against it as far as I know.
Are identifiers and semantics orthogonal or not? Certainly the English
language supports the concept of one word meaning multiple things, but it
forces interpretation in context, which machines have a notoriously hard
time with. Such forced interpretation seems contrary to the goals of a
schema language and type enforcement system.
I see nothing wrong with a rule that says if you're going to give something
a name, give a unique name. There's not way to enforce that, of course, but
we're dealing with it for namespace identifiers already.