[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
james anderson wrote:
> If this is true, then one eliminates those document forms which
> exhibit synonomy and/or homography from the set of conforming
> documents. Which exclused exactly those documents for which one
> really needs the machinery entailed by namespaces.
Correct. What we have is different views on how this problem should be
solved.
I think that if two different DTDs both include the element type name
foo, then you need to rename those element types. In particular, you
need to put each into a separate (non-null) namespace. For example
{MyFoo}foo and {YourFoo}foo. This change needs to be done once and may
be painful.
It appears that you would like to continue using the original DTDs, but
use default namespace declarations to place each foo in a different
namespace. The advantage of this is that it provides a transitional
device from non-namespaced DTDs to namespaced DTDs. The disadvantage is
that you now have two forms of each name floating around -- the
non-namespaced form and the namespaced form and neither works with the
code for the other.
I suppose which works for you is as much as matter of philosophy as
technology.
-- Ron
|
