[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>...But the
> conclusion of all this is :
>
> - either we don't touch anything, and we consider that namespaces are 50%
of
> QNames. In that case, we'll have to define the concept of document types,
> and solve a lot of related problems.
> - or we just say from now that namespaces have an intrisinc meaning, that
it
> is possible to use them to change the behaviour of programs. In that case
> namespaces become a de-facto equivalent of document types, and we'll have
to
> change a lot of things in schemas, beginning with the isolation of schemas
> regarding to namespaces, and the ability to compose them.
>
There is a clear relationship between the root element of a document and the
document itself, but the two are not the same. Similarly there is clearly a
relationship between the namespace of an element and its type but the two
are not the same. Similarly there _can be_ a relationship between a
namespace and the schemas and various other resources that may be used to
perform operations on elements qualified by the namespace, but still the two
are not the same.
Jonathan
|
