Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Peter Piatko wrote: > "...In this example, there are three occurrences of the name title within > markup, and the name alone clearly provides insufficient information to > allow correct processing by a software module." > > The implication of this sentence is that the type and the identifier should > have a 1-1 mapping. I think that section is non-normative for a reason. I imagine that it's mainly to help justify the reasoning behind why attributes do not inherit the default namespace. This implies a set of conventions, but it does not mandate those conventions. I think the Namespaces syntax is sufficient as is (many think it's far too sugary, let alone not sugary enough). > (b) simplify (i.e. > flatten) the interpretation of what namespaces are. I've always had this "flattened" interpretation of Namespaces. This is reflected in the design of my de facto schemas... > Option (b) implies that an identifier might map to multiple types. I think > the question boils down whether this ok or not. ...so I hope it's okay! Evan Lenz XYZFind Corp.
|
