[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> 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.
If primary and secondary are roles a vocabulary plays determined by
whether it's the root element, then you're talking about
vocabularies being sometimes being in a namespace, and sometimes
not, depending on whether the the root element in the vocabulary
is the root element in a document. That's arguably worse than a rule
saying primary vocabs are fixed to the root and can't be embedded.
Essentially you're mandating element names in a vocabulary must
change if the vocabulary is the root element in a document. I've
seen people do things like that, it's problematic at best.
Bill de hÓra
|
