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

Re: SD5 - Namespaces (Implementation questions)

From: Peter Murray-Rust <Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 May 1997 14:12:50 GMT
Message-Id: <6800@ursus.demon.co.uk>
To: jjc@jclark.com
Cc: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
In message <> James Clark writes:

Thanks very much for the reply James,

> At 10:03 18/05/97 GMT, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> I don't think SUBDOC solves the problem: people want multiple namespaces in
> the same entity.  It also doesn't help with creating DTDs that combine
> element types from multiple namespaces.

Good.  That's one less thing to consider :-)

> >AFs and/or HyTime.  I am repeatedly assured by the evangelists - and I believe
> >them - that AFs and HyTime will solve all our problems.
> The only thing from HyTime that you need for namespaces is AFs, which are
> completely independent of the rest of HyTime.

Thanks.  That was my understanding.
> >  This is clearly a 
> >millenium solution for SGML, but not for July 1, 1997.
> Why not?  It's implemented and people are using it already in the SGML world.

My apologies - I meant XML.  XML has decided against the use of AFs at this
stage.  To retrofit it as a solution to the namespace problem by July 1 would
be too tight.

> >  Currently it ('it' 
> >refers to the universal solution) has the following drawbacks.
> >(a) It's not easy to understand, and I don't. [Several people have both 
> >talked to me and posted explanations for which many thanks, but I'm a slow 
> >learner.]
> If you gave some detail about what it is you don't understand, maybe
> somebody could try to explain.

I think the problem is really one of introductory material and examples.

> >(d) I am frightened that the *output* of a HyTime engine (or whatever) is
> >sufficiently complex that the post-parsing/application engines must take on a
> >further level of sophistication.
> You don't need a HyTime engine to do AFs.  The output of an AF engine isn't
> much different from an output of a parser.

This sounds promising.  Is it compatible with ESIS?


BTW I never meant to imply that SP would not - at any stage - manage 
anything that came out of the XML-spec.  I'm addressing the requirement
that XML tools should be easy to write and I hope that it's a compliment
to say that SP isn't in this category:-)

Peter Murray-Rust, domestic net connection
Virtual School of Molecular Sciences
Received on Sunday, 18 May 1997 12:22:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:26 UTC