[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Arjun Ray wrote:
> Correct. The spec is silent on this, and thus useless for the general
> problem of vocabulary combination *by syntax*.
Arjun is really getting close to troll territory here, but this very
strong claim should not go unrefuted. The syntactic problems of
combining markup from multiple vocabularies include:
1. avoiding collisions
2. expressing syntactic restrictions on the markup from each
individual vocabulary
3. expressing syntactic restrictions on the way the vocabularies
combine
4. (maybe) expressing rules for how to extract vocabulary-specific
subsets of the combination. But this is maybe getting into
semantic territory.
#1 is easy, and namespaces solve it. That's all they've ever done, and
all they've ever been claimed to do.
#2 is harder, and is addressed, if not completely solved, by DTDs and
their successors.
#3 is harder still, and is addressed, if not completely solved, by more
more modern schema languages like XSD and RNG.
#4... nope, I think that's a semantic ingegration problem.
Put another way, there are states intermediate between being "useless"
and "providing a complete solution". It's a good thing, because
software or standards that achieve the second criterion are not observed
to exist.
-Tim
|
