- From: James Clark <jjc@jclark.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 18:09:17 +0700
- To: <w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org>
> 1) I've made a proposal for scoping arbitrary regions within a > namespace. This allow the 'import' of a DTD or DTD fragment > interpreting all identifiers as being in the namespace, e.g. > > <!NS [ html: [ > <!entity % htmldtd PUBLIC "xxx"> > %htmldtd; > ]]> > I could of course just use qualified names explicitly in my own DTD, > if I wanted to: > > <!element protect (localids:p*)> > <!attlist localids:p id ID #REQUIRED> > . . . I agree that this should be allowed. But given that, isn't your proposal (1) unnecessary. We can get valid XML documents that include namespaces without it. I agree something like it is nice, but I don't think we're ready to standardize it yet. On the other hand I think the basic concept that gis have a namespace part that inherits is relatively straightforward and uncontroversial. > <foo id='p1'> > . . . > <protect> > <localids:p id='p1'> > ... > </localids:p> > </protect> > > with no id conflict between the two 'p1' IDs. The protected one could > be ref'd from outside as 'localids:p1'. I'm not sure I agree with this. I can easily imagine wanting to combine element whose types come from different namespaces but have them share one ID namespace. I'm not at all sure it makes sense to bind the ID namespace to the element type namespace. > I certainly do NOT endorse any proposal which says that simply by > qualifying a tag, the enclosing element's type's content model > implicitly gets changed to allow that. Agreed. James
Received on Thursday, 19 June 1997 07:06:57 UTC