[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re:Enlightenmentvia avoiding the T-word)
- From: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>,"Fuchs, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 14:28:02 -0400
> Of course one define identical syntaxes with DTDs which don't need to
> such "local" and "global" differentiations. I wonder what the real need
> this complexity is?
Let me restate this, because the point I am trying to make has nothing to do
with the distinction between DTDs and XSDL or RELAXNG, and everything to do
with how namespaces are used in XML documents.
That should read: "Of course one can define identical syntaxes with other
schema languages ( e.g. RELAXNG) which don't need to invoke ..." The point
being here, that there is a distinction between the label given to a pattern
of elements (e.g. the complexType name) and the name of the element itself.
In well-formed documents, there is only one root/document element, so are
you suggesting that we call all elements which are not allowed to be at the
top level "local"? That would be fine with me, but I would hardly suggest
that all such elements be unqualified. I understand that this is not exactly
how -XSDL defines- "local element" but what I am trying to get at is not how
such a term is defined in XSDL, but rather what the practical meaning of
this term is.