[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Patrick Stickler wrote:
> The problem is that even if namespaces corresponded to
> single vocabularies (and I don't think they do) vocabularies
> do not correspond to single document models and programmers
> really are concerned with document models, not vocabularies.
Yep.
> From a programming perspective, I see namespaces as irrelevant.
> They're just punctuation that provides globally distinct names.
> It's the context of how those names are used that matters, and
> that depends on doctypes, content models, etc.
Yep again.
> Stylesheets may reference elements and attributes by name,
> but context is critical, and one crafts stylesheets by document
> model, not by vocabulary. If a stylesheet is shared across
> a vocabulary, it is only because all the content models
> are compatable but introduce an incompatable content model
> and you'll quickly specialize stylesheets accordingly.
And again.
> But the namespace itself is not, and should not, be required nor
> expected to bear the semantic and functional significance that
> you seem to expect from it.
And again.
> Nevertheless, as I stated above, a namespace URI is a convenient
> point of intersection for referring to and describing such
> related resources, and a namespace document could be a reasonable
> interim solution for providing access to such knowledge.
Exactly. If you view RDDL as a pragmatic way of letting humans access
resources at design time, it works. If you view it as a way help you
process documents at run time, it doesn't.
-- Ron
|
