• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:51:13 +0200
• Organization: nil
• References: <ab7bdvs3gol4j4trlefsiq6g4bfbaou70f@4...> <ab7bdvs3gol4j4trlefsiq6g4bfbaou70f@4...> <5.2.0.9.2.20030529085455.02f6b350@s...>
• Reply-to: james.anderson@s...

"Simon St.Laurent" wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

is this less a vocabulary combination because it is temporal reather than lexical?

...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Vocabulary Combination
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Vocabulary Combination
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces
• Next by Date: Re: Vocabulary Combination and optional namespaces
• Previous by thread: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Next by thread: Re: Vocabulary Combination
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread