[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
two distinct prefixes may be bound to the same namespace name.
this includes, in particular, the case where one prefix denotes the
current default namespace.
as soon as this is permitted, namespaces contribute to markings which
are not merely lexical.
are they still punctuation?
even without schemas.
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
>
> Ok. Here's two:
>
> <!-- Those who are using namespaces appear to be happy with them. -->
> <!-- Equivalent functionality won't get traction. -->
>
> Namespaces are the conundrum of XML theory.
>
> If namespaces are tied to schemas, they aren't just punctuation.
> If XML requires punctuation and schemas, well-formed only systems
> aren't XML. A colonized name doesn't have to resolve to anything
> to be disambiguatible if the QName prefix is real. If the namespace
> is just punctuation, it only needs the prefix. If the namespace
> needs the schema, XML can't rely solely on well-formedness; so the
> theory of XML is busted.
>
> len
>
> From: Seairth Jacobs [mailto:seairth@seairth.com]
>
> Hmm... Despite what I thought was a serious challenge to namespaces, not a
> single person had any comments on it (not even Len). Does this mean that
> the idea is so wrong-headed that it isn't worth discussing? Is what I said
> just not understandable? I am amazed that such a vocal group has absolutely
> nothing to say on the topic...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
