[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Paul Prescod wrote:
> 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.
Right, and to be totally clear it is not tenable to equate namespaces and
document types.
1. XML documents that don't use namespaces certainly have a 'document type'
correct?
2. the document type is a property of the document i.e. the instance,
whereas the namespace is a property of the element
3. XHTML is the perfect example (and note that RDDL is an XHTML extension)
where the "html" element must be qualified by the
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace but, particularly when one considers
XHTML modularized schemas, one would not expect to find a, for example,
private modularized XHTML schema located in the description of the XHTML
namespace itself.
I.e. there are an infinite number of possible schemas which conform to XHTML
modularization and whose instance documents have the root "xhtml:html".
Perhaps the main issue is that if we are finally jettisoning DTDs, we ought
to have a replacement for the <!DOCTYPE> declaration (modulo the internal
subset - groan). It would be good if the schema pointed to by this
declaration where not hardwired to a single schema declaration language.
This issue is IMHO orthogonal to namespaces.
Jonathan
|
