Lists Home |
Date Index |
I think I was not being clear. The use of "primary" and "secondary" were in
terms of the roles played in a given document. "Primary" indicated the
vocabulary associated to the doctype (e.g. whichever vocabulary the root
element belonged to). "Secondary" indicated all other vocabularies that
were not the primary vocabulary. As a result, a given vocabulary could be
in a primary role in one case and in a secondary role in another case.
From: "Bill de hÓra" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> > No, in this case, I am saying the primary vocabulary *never* uses
> > namespaces, regardless of whether there are secondary vocabularies or
> > This would mean that no change in code would be required to handle the
> > primary vocabulary.
> Only as long as the primary vocabulary is never embedded in another
> vocabulary or any enveloping document with a default namespace.
> > I agree that the "sometimes" approach is not good. But
> > I do not see a need to namespace the primary vocabulary under any
> > circumstances.
> To enforce your rules, you need another rule - primary vocabularies
> can never be embedded, even in other primary vocabularies. But to
> paraphrase Meyer, real vocabularies have no top.