More namespaces perversion

[Peter Murray-Rust]

At 21:06 08/10/98 +0200, Ron Bourret wrote:
[...]
>
>However, somebody (Bill LaForge?) thought that this stuff probably
shouldn't go 
>in the schema file, as it is application-specific, not schema specific.
That 
>is, while you would presumably have a single schema for a given document
class, 
>you would probably have multiple bindings.  (Please correct me if I've
gotten 
>this wrong.)

This is a core problem and rather isomorphous to (I think) DavidB's points
1-3. Does the Element-Object binding occur in the
document/application/client, etc. I think we have to have  an extensible,
overridable mechanism.

thinking as I go ...

Assume I have <molecule> defined in a DTD and therefore mapped to an
ElementType (from memory - is that right?) in (say)
http://www.xml-cml.org/cmlXSchema.xml. This is the planetwide definition of
CML DTD and its associated XSchema. Assume we also add a <binding> of some
sort:
<elementType name="molecule">
  <binding>
    <namespace xmlns="http://www.xml-cml.org"/
    <java>&moleculeJava;</java>
  </binding>
</elementName>

(Apologies for not reading the XSchema spec - it's offline... Please
correct this example, Ron)

The definitive binding is mapped onto an entity moleculeJava distributed
from xml-cml.org. But when the client gets it they can override
moleculeJava with their own entity. This will be quite common (I approve of
it) since there will be very different functionalities that people want.
The only thing is that they must implement the same API - the one we are
discussing under XObjects.

[...]
>
>> [David Brownell]:
>> >That sketch omits two important features:  (a) importing bindngs
>> >defined for other namespaces, (b) document-specific bindings, such
>> >as for the "default" namespace or embedded in a document.
>
>I suspect the import problems could be solved by the general XSchema
scheme of 
>using XLink to import stuff from other files.  Document-specific bindings
could 
>be handled by associating the appropriate XSchema file with the document
through 
>an XSchema PI.  (I might be missing exactly what is meant by
document-specific 
>bindings here.)

I agree that XLink is another mechanism - I thought it was going to be a
Recommendation a long time ago. If it were - and if we agreed some
transclusion mechanism - my entity stuff could be something like:
<XLink xml:link="simple" show="embed" actuate="auto" href=moleculeJava/>
where moleculeJava was an ENTITY (if I have the syntax right).

The earlier one seems easier. The main thing is to have an override mechanism

	P.

Peter Murray-Rust, Director Virtual School of Molecular Sciences, domestic
net connection
VSMS http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/vsms, Virtual Hyperglossary
http://www.venus.co.uk/vhg

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)