(Bullard, Claude L (Len)) asks:
>So in effect, we can create namespace aggregates
>which are not systematic. So via namespaces,
>any set of XML application productions (by which
>I mean, a production from HTML, from SVG, from
>X3D, or XSLT) can be combined and be syntactically
>correct.
Yep. Namespaces just give you big long labels defined by a system of
convenient abbreviations.
>How can one determine:
>
>1. If a given combination is meaningful
Meaningful in what sense? I apply meaning to what I find, which I think
is a lot of what Tim sees as causing "semantic drift". (Nice concept,
BTW.)
>2. How to discover that meaning
I develop meaning based on things I encounter. Specs are sometimes
helpful, sometimes not.
>3. How to assign that combination or even a single
> production to a running piece of code
I do what seems sensible in my particular coding context. That's all.
Systematic? No. Part of systems? Sure, and critically so.
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
