[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
james anderson scripsit:
> In whatever grade of esteem one may hold the Namespaces in XML
> recommentation, it specifies that a conforming document may contain
> lexically identical qualified names which identify more than one universal
> name depending on context as well as lexically distinct qualified names
> which identify the same universal name - the synonymy/homography issue.
>
> If DSDL chooses to ratify a namespace declaration form which exhibits
> indefinite scope, it must also either specify that such documents are
> non-conformant, or specify that such documents are not permitted to
> depend on attribute default values for namespace declarations, but must
> include all namespace declarations in the document entity.
More precisely: documents may not depend on attribute defaulting information
*in the validation DTD* to supply namespace declarations. This suits me:
attribute defaulting is the proper business of the native (DOCTYPE) DTD.
When a document has been parsed, all information is already in hand to
make namespace assignments.
Synonymy/homography itself is no problem. The following document is
namespace-well-formed:
<foo:root xmlns:foo="urn:x-one">
<bar:a xmlns:bar="urn:x-one"/>
<foo:a xmlns:foo="urn:x-two"/>
</foo:root>
and is valid against the following eDTD:
<!NAMESPACE one "urn:x-one">
<!NAMESPACE two "urn:x-two">
<!ELEMENT one:root (one:a, two:a)>
<!ELEMENT one:a EMPTY>
<!ELEMENT two:a EMPTY>
since the prefixes in the validation DTD have nothing to do with those
used in the instance; only the universal names are the same.
--
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith. --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_
|
