W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org > June 1997

namespace viz validation [was RE: DSIGS]

From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 14:03:10 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970618140221.00717e9c@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 14:39 1997 06 18 -0500, David G. Durand wrote:
>At 8:38 PM -0500 5/23/97, Andrew Layman wrote:
>>Oh.  I agree that we don't want to preclude validation.  Just that
>>validation and namespaces are separate issues.
>
>As part of my review of namespace blather I came upon this anti-gem.
>
>Since validation is not possible in the presence of arbitrary included
>markup unless that markup is part of a DTD, the GI-hacking namespace
>proposals are all intimately related to the question of validation. Wishing
>will not make the problem go away, so we need to address it if we adopt any
>such proposal. 

I'm having trouble finding the technical arguments in this posting, but
I wanted to say that, while it's always true that all issues are
inter-related to varying degrees, I find it helpful to separate namespaces
and validation for the most part.  

For me, the basic namespace issue comes down merely to figuring out
some way of (1) "uniquifying" names in an instance so I can tell that
the <a> element in one part of my document (the HTML namespace) is
different from the <a> element in another part (the AAP equation
markup namespace), and at the same time (2) grouping names so that,
for example, I know which style sheet to use to find information about
this name.  None of this requires validation.

So, while I agree that we need to address how validation could work
with multiple namespaces--just like we need to address how validation
works with any issue we may raise with respect to XML--I see the basics
of the namespace issue as potentially independent of validation.

paul
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 1997 15:04:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 10:04:41 EDT