xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Dierken <m...@DataChannel.com>
Subject RE: Why AF have nothing to do with my proposal
Date Mon, 03 Jan 2000 17:40:29 GMT
Actually, namespaces are a prefix to identifiers like tagnames or attribute
names. But you only get one per object.
Architectures are applicable (I think, but I'm probably wrong) to elements
(and via scope, their attributes, structure & content) but you get many per
element.

So, architectures let you declare the semantic equivalence of things. 

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clark C. Evans [mailto:clark.evans@manhattanproject.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 1999 9:41 PM
> To: general@xml.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Why AF have nothing to do with my proposal
> 
> 
> Mike, thanks for sharing.  Thus, from this description:
> 
> 	AF = "nicer" Namespaces + "limited" XSLT
> 
> I say nicer, beacuse Namespaces use attributes, where
> AF seems to be using processing instructions... which seems 
> far more appropriate -- especially since prefixes [should be]
> merely syntax-sugar placeholders for the full namespace URI.
> 
> Am I missing anything?
> 
> E.Kimber's wrote to Mike Dierken:
> > Here, we're binding a local architecture name to the URI
> > for the architecture as a whole, as well as binding to a formal
> > definition of the syntactic rules for the architecture, 
> which includes
> > the set of element type and attribute names valid in that 
> architecture.
> > In addition, the architecture standard says that the URI should be
> > resolvable to the documentation for the architecture (although there
> > should be no processing failure if the architecture URI is not
> > resolvable).
> > 
> > Thus, architectures provide the same level of name 
> globalization that
> > namespaces do while providing additional semantic and 
> syntactic bindings
> > that namespaces cannot provide (because the namespace spec does not
> > define a mechanism for doing it).
> > 
> > In this sense, architectures are a proper superset of 
> namespaces. There
> > is no *syntactic* conflict between the use of namespaces and
> > architectures so both can be used together.
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message