Namespace Comments (and dtd encoding)
MURATA Makoto
murata at apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp
Thu Aug 6 04:51:37 BST 1998
David G. Durand wrote:
> Well, it's not ugly, it allows re-use of prefixes without creating
> conflicts. This is the point of a local scoping mechanism. A prefix is
> essentially a variable, bound to a URI. the draft allows these variables to
> be rebound within limite hierachically nested scopes (just like all modern
> programming languages). These scopes are in one-to-one correspondence with
> the element structure of a document, which for documents is the most
> relevant hierarchy.
>
> It's true that DTDs cannot be aware of this right now, but it's also true
> that local scoping is most useful incases where people want to add markup
> to existing document intances (a key scenario for namespaces). It's also
> true that after such dynamic markup, DTD validation is going to fail
> anyway.
As a member of the WG, I have been involved. I have agreed on colonization,
and have always believed that colonization provides a good basis for
the namespace extension. Now that we have local scoping and declaration by
attributes, I start to wonder. (Skip the rest of this message if you
do not want to hear.)
Historically, we have always assumed that it should be possible to
validate an XML document with namespaces with validating parsers of XML 1.0.
This is not the case, any more. Since the same prefix can be bound to
different namespaces, it is no longer possible to construct an equivalent
XML 1.0 DTD from a collection of namespace-schema pairs. Then, what is
the point of using prefixes? In my understanding, one reason that we
chose colonization rather than reserved attributes is validation by XML 1.0
parsers. This reason no longer exists. (Note: The other reason was
qualification of attributes.)
Declaration of namespaces are inherited. But we also want to have
inheritance of prefixes in the future. That is, we would like an
element to inherit prefixes from superior elements. Thus, we will
have complicated interaction of two types of inheritance. For example,
it will become possible for an element to inherit a prefix and not to
inherit a namespace dcl. One could argue that these two should always
be in sync, but then what is the point of having the two? It would have
been a lot simpler if we had introduced a reserved attribute for specifying
the namespace of the element.
Makoto
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
Tel: +81-44-812-7230 Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata at apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev
mailing list