Lists Home |
Date Index |
Arjun Ray wrote:
> james anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> | when the paper with the gory details appears, it would be nice if they
> | were to define "external" and "local" with respect to "name" and
> | "taxonomy" in terms of scope and extent with reference to process,
> | document, document definition, and element.
> I didn't want to write a formal treatise in a list message, so I used
> terms which I *hoped* would be sufficiently clear in their apparent
i referred to the "gory details" and remain interested that they include the
> By 'taxonomy' I meant vocabulary or "namespace" or "tag set" - you know,
> the stuff that goes between all those pointy brackets. A taxonomy is a
> collection of 'name's in some coherent semantic scheme. (If people are
> allowed to be vague with what a namespace "means", I'm not sure why
> 'taxonomy' can't simply be taken for what it *usually* means.)
because the key aspects of your description concern "name sets", which are not
the same as "taxonomies".
> I chose
> 'taxonomy', because it has connotations of an organizing scheme, over
> vocabulary, which suggests only a collection.
please decide whether you want to describe operations over the elements of "an
organizing scheme, over [a] vovabulary" (regardless of what it might suggest) or
over the elements of a "name set".
please do it in advance.
please do not repeat the sins of "namespaces".
> 'Local' refered to the document in which the instance markup appears.
> 'External' refered to the provenance of some names. When you want to "use
> the XLink namespace in an XHTML document", then the 'type' in 'xlink:type'
> would be an external name, or a name in an external taxonomy, as distinct
> from the local name (which could also be 'type', as it happens) given to
> the *value* in the markup.
> The scope is the document.
? can different elements in a given document map a given "local" name to
different "external" names? your examples implied that this could be permitted.
which would imply at least "element" scope, rather than "document" scope. does
the "element" scope entail contained elements?
> One reasonable processing model is the way in
> which an AF implementation could "extract" or "project" a virtual document
> from the actual one, with all non-architectural, or non-this-namespace,
> information removed.
> | from (3) i infer that the extent of external names is indefinite and the
> | scope of a local->external mapping is element, but it would be nice to
> | see that defined.
> | ? what is the extent of a local->external mapping and what is the extent
> | of a local name,
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "extent". What would be
> the extent, for instance, of markup like xlink:type="simple" in some
steele's book on common lisp contains a good dicsussion of scope and extent.
> | that is what is the relation to the infoset?
> Per se, it's just a bunch of attributes. Theoretically, you could
> *derive* infosets for implied virtual documents, factored by "namespace".