Lists Home |
Date Index |
John Cowan wrote:
> 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.
Could you describe the distinctions among DTD classes. That is, between the "validation" and the "native" DTD? Are there perhaps
documents which might be made available under the public section of dsdl.org which might provide background on the larger
> 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
> <foo:root xmlns:foo="urn:x-one">
> <bar:a xmlns:bar="urn:x-one"/>
> <foo:a xmlns:foo="urn:x-two"/>
> 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.
See http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200105/msg00209.html for a pertinent example.