[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
>
> Although I believe that there might be a valid case here, there are some
> serious implications to this construct - one that springs imediately to my
> mind is the issue of content equality. I.e. if you using a construct like
> the above you are saying that the content of the xhtml:body and my:body
> elements are the same - at least in valid documents. If that's the case
> why
> don't you just use the xhtml:body in your my-schema?
That's a good point. Only two good arguments I can think of:
1) Equivalently named and contented <g> elements may not have equivalent
meanings in both namespaces. <xhmtl:body> is format indicator, whereas
<my:body> could describe, well, my body. Different namespaces, different
meanings.
2) No prior knowledge of future intent. When I defined the element
<my:body>, I had no knowledge or intention of seeing that content formatted
in xhtml. Somebody, somewhere later decides that the content I provided is
useful (as is) for the type of representation they want to present.
I think a fair response to those two arguments is to ask how often an
element, whose content is designed for one purpose, as a same-named
equivalent in another namespace context that, coincidently, has a definition
compatible with the former?
It seems like a bit of a stretch upon further reflection. No point in
solving purely theoretical problems.
|
