[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "Bill de hÓra" <bill@dehora.net>
> 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.
You've lost me here. All I was suggesting is that, for a given document,
the primary vocabulary (the one that's associated to the doctype) should
never be namespaced. I see no point in namespacing it. Regardless of
whether other vocabularies are mixed into the same document, no namespace is
needed for the primary vocabulary (while all other vocabularies must be
namespaced). If that same vocabulary is used in another document not as the
primary vocabulary, then it would be namespaced. I certainly don't see a
need to change element names (any more than the colonified name hack does).
Why would this approach be problematic? What am I missing?
Seairth
|
