RE: [xml-dev] Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re: [xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Problem is, when people made that claim, they were met with a 
chorus of "spec doesn't say that; don't go beyond the spec 
lest ye become like Microsoft" and so we redo the argument 
twice a year here.

I think what Steve said was about right: a light single 
point of contact.  But, with namespaces, we hide a property 
in the code and expose it in the data only if we want to 
(really, in the text).  We specify it in the instance.  A 
#FIXED attribute specifies it in the DTD or schema and only 
exposes it in the instance if we want to, or because, the 
DTD isn't processed reliably.  Well-formed processing builds 
in unreliability just as the use of internal subsets builds 
in unpredictability.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@rbii.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 1:31 AM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Re: AF and namespaces, once again (was Re:
[xml-dev ] There is a m eaning, but it's not in the data alone)


On Friday 25 January 2002 03:22 pm, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> You go a bit further and require multiple semantics and that
> the instance should be able to tell the system which semantics
> it can be used with.

Some people would claim that this is what namespaces do.

I don't think the document is the place to specify the sets of 
applicable semantics.