XHTML and the Three Namespaces

[Matthew Gertner]

> They also let you say that C is both an A and a B.  As A and B can have
> different definitions, C therefore may have multiple definitions.
> 
> There are plenty of variations on this theme, of course, but the basic
> point is that anything, even things uniquely identified, may of course have
> multiple definitions. Those multiple definitions may not even be known to a
> given user, or even to the designer of a schema/DTD, but they're still
> 'lurking' out there.
> 
> An HTML p element is both a strict:p and a transitional:p - both
> definitions are perfectly acceptable.  Is there a good reason to prefer
> strict:p and transitional:p to html:p?  I still haven't heard any.

Seems like the difference between a conjunction and a disjunction. In
your architectures example, C is an A *and* a B, just like Ronald Reagan
is a former actor *and* a former president. html:p can't be a strict:p
*and* a transitional:p unless they are the same thing. For what it's
worth, I think they are (they only appear to be different because we
don't yet have an effective mechanism for expressing how a single
element type can have two different (but related) content models in
different contexts), and I agree 100% with you on the namespace issue. I
was just bothered by your analogy to architectures.

Matt

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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)