Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > > Namespaces are system flags to XML processors. > They don't belong in the core. Because names > of resources and names of locations of resources > in the system are conflated, you can't put them > in the core without tieing them directly to > the system. That violated platform independence. "names of resources and names of locations of resources" - even conflated - concern things which are independant of the one, single property intrinsic to namespaces: the capacity to disambiguating names. which, i would trust, remains part of the "core". establishing identity with respect to <asdf xmlns='12345' /> <abcd:asdf xmlns:abcd='12345' /> is no different than doing so with respect to <!ENTITY % qwer 'asdf'> <!ELEMENT %qwer; EMPTY > none of which has to do with either the names of resources or the names of locations of resources. > > Not all schemas are equal. This is a flaw > in your ideas. Namespaces with HTTP in the > definition are considered resolvable. which has nothing to do with the identity of the names in the respective namespace. > That > is the flaw in TimBL's idea. As to whether > DTDs belong in the core, without them, the > mess of lackadasical well-formedness gets > worse. We have years of solid practical > experience with DTDs in the core. No valid > reason to remove them has been presented. > > len >
|
