• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 10:05:28 -0400
• In-reply-to: <3ED5B096.9080102@t...>
• References: <ab7bdvs3gol4j4trlefsiq6g4bfbaou70f@4...><ab7bdvs3gol4j4trlefsiq6g4bfbaou70f@4...>

At 12:02 AM 5/29/2003 -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
>Don't be silly.  Why would you want names that are unique on a wide scale 
>if you weren't going to be combining vocabularies?

That's not a silly question.

I use namespace identifiers in most of my processing, even when I don't 
plan to be combining vocabularies in single documents.  It means I can 
create pipelines which handle multiple vocabularies correctly, for 
instance, even when using tools that have long since forgotten that DOCTYPE 
exists.

The vocabulary-combination issue seems to have driven the scoping issues 
and made for a lot of never-ending conversations.  While I've written code 
that now deals with the scoping, it's still vastly complicating, and only 
rarely useful - I have a hard time seeing that as having hit an 80/20.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>

• References:
  • Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces
• Next by Date: Re: Why Standards?
• Previous by thread: Re: Looking for an example of a name colliision
• Next by thread: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread