[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
John Cowan wrote:
> Joe English scripsit:
>
> > (Actually, I would go one step further and argue that
> > any XML vocabulary which is not designed to be mixed
> > with elements from other vocabularies ought not to use
> > namespaces at all. There are valid arguments against
> > this position, of course.)
>
> I hold that it is inappropriate to label a namespace "Not to be
> combined with others"; names in namespaces are resources for
> constructing document (types).
I think that's more or less in agreement with what I believe.
The main reason for using namespace names in a vocabulary
is so that it can be with other vocabularies to form a document
type [*]. On the other hand, if a document type contains only
words from a single vocabulary designed specifically for that
document type and for no others, there's no reason to use
namespaces at all.
[*] "document type" in the SGML sense. I'm not sure what the
accepted XML term for this concept is, or even if there is one.
--Joe English
jenglish@flightlab.com
|
