Namespaces, Architectural Forms, and Sub-Documents

Chris Maden crism at
Wed Feb 4 16:29:11 GMT 1998

[David Megginson]
> "namespace:gi" element type names are unsuitable for several reasons:


> Why are people worried about writing specs to solve a problem that
> already has good, working, available solutions?

The problem (as I see it) is not one of including pieces of existing
documents, nor of structural validation.  The main reason for
namespaces is semantic inheritance.  I want to write a scientific
research paper quickly.  HTML has the overall document structure and
components that I need; MathML has equations; CML has chemical
formulæ.  I should be able to say that I'm using those things,
associate stylesheets, and have my browser know that <html:a> should
be styled with the "a" rule from the HTML stylesheet.

It should be *possible* to create a DTD to which such a document
complies, but I am not as interested in automatic validation of a
namespace document.  The interrelational issues are, I think, too
complex to solve; in the example above, I would need to change the
text-containing HTML elements' content models to include chemical and
mathematical markup, and maybe allow HTML markup in MathML theorems.
Pushing selected information into the content models is too ugly.

<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL> <TEL>+1.617.499.7487
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>

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