Re: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: Enlightenmentvia avoiding the T-word)

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

 From: "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>
 
> Not everybody seems to be answering the same question here.  We can 
> distinguish the questions:
> 
> (a) If the meaning/allowed content of an element is highly 
> context-dependent, should the name of the element be namespace qualified or 
> not?
> 
> (b) If an element is declared by an XSL local type, should the name of the 
> element be namespace qualified or not?

> From my perspective, question (a) is the primary question..

Good questions. Here is the one I would add:

  Should an XML name carry enough information in it to let a program(mer)
know whether the name is univocal (i.e., a single meaning and a single type
including restrictions, considered broadly, or extensions of that type) or eqivocal 
(i.e. different meanings in situ or different types)?

In other words, should programmers trust markup?  

It seems to me the only signal available to signal equivocality is the
unqualified name. It is a warning: "I could be anything...I have to be
handled explicitly according to my context...default handling is fragile."
Similarly, everything that does have a namespace should be saying
"no harm will come to they who handle me using defaults".
 
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe