[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Nicolas Lehuen wrote:
>
>...
>
I agree with most of what you write. Note that schemas are not
wholeheartedly on one side or another. Even though each schema document
may only work with one namespace you can of course make a schema for a
multi-namespace "document type" (or "MIME type") by using inclusions.
I'll also note that the W3C is having a discussion on a highly related
issue. What is the relationship between mime types (AKA Internet
document types) and namespaces. Simon's recent publication indicates
that he thinks that namespaces are semantically meaningful enough to be
a good trigger for processing.
Of the two solutions you present, I think I prefer the document-centric
one because it allows people to use namespaces however they want, as
they have in the past. XSLT would be radically different if it was
forced to fit a model wherein embedded namespaces must be purely the
same as if they were in a standalone document. In general, I'm not
convinced that that is a feasible approach. It is just too useful to be
able to add features to subordinate namespaces.
Plus, it is easier to add a concept of "document type" than to
retroactively deprecate uses of namespaces that are not pure. If a
particular combination of namespaces happens to be pure then the
meta-schema and meta-stylesheet that glues them together should be
trivial to write.
Paul Prescod
|
