Architectural Forms and Namespaces

David Megginson ak117 at
Wed Apr 1 17:59:14 BST 1998

james anderson writes:

 > >  > 2. if the schema is present, should the processor permit local
 > >  > additions to the namespace, that is the introduction of names which
 > >  > are not present in the external definition?  should the processor
 > >  > permit redefinition of existing names from the namespace?
 > >
 > > This would go against the basic principle of namespaces (globalisation
 > > and uniquification of names), since two documents could create
 > > different extensions to the same namespace.  ...
 > which is ok, if the issue is architectural forms, but bad if one is talking
 > about namespaces...

I'm not certain that I understand your point -- a document cannot
invent new architectural forms for an existing base architecture.  

It is true that since architectural forms allow multi-generational
inheritance, you can invent a new base architecture that is derived
from an existing base architecture (just as you can derive a new class
from an existing one in Java).

All the best,


David Megginson                 ak117 at
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins at

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at
Archived as:
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list