Namespaces Not Necessarily Unrepentant Evil

David Rosenborg David.Rosenborg at
Mon Aug 31 13:22:32 BST 1998

james anderson wrote:
> In this situation, either of the encodings


> express the relations which you describe.


One person wrote (in a directed reply):
> Note that you can name an element by giving it an ID attribute.
> I'm not sure if this solves your problem, though.

Thanx for your answers. Perhaps I wasn't clear, but my question was on
the conceptual level, not about a particular problem instance.

I sought a discussion of how DTDs, AFs and other Schemas deal with the
distinction of type names and named instances of types.

And this distinction is also valid for traditional documents not
just encoded data.

One person wrote (in a directed reply):
> XML came via SGML from a document-centric world and isn't really intended
> to model object-oriented polymorphic languages.

I'm from both worlds, but I see no reason why
you cannot apply polymorphism and other pardigms of
object-oriented languages to even plain old documents.
Also, the lines between programming languages, data and documents are
getting fuzzier all the time. And I hope it gets even fuzzier :-)



David.Rosenborg at                        OM Exchange Technology

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