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

Re: Thoughts on namespaces

From: Peter Murray-Rust <Peter@ursus.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 23:42:45 GMT
Message-Id: <7113@ursus.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
In message <3.0.32.19970522151453.0072da94@swbell.net> "W. Eliot Kimber" writes:
[...]
> 
> Problem 3 is solved by not doing it: use indirection instead (as explained
> in my XML DEV post and in more detail in my SGML '96 paper *SUBDOC: Why I
> Demand It*, www.isogen.com/papers/subdoc.html).

Despite apparently confusing the issue before Eliot's very helpful reply,
this is in fact what I do in CML where I have 'imported' HTML2.0 at DTD
level into CML (i.e. it is a combination of DTDs (actually 3)).  The original
reason for combining the DTDs is largely that the components of the 
document can all be held in one file, and under one DOCTYPE.  Note that to
convince people of the value of this approach we need a generic implementation
of SHOW="EMBED" ACTUATE="AUTO", so it's psychologically an XML-LINK issue as 
well.

Maybe I'm overly nervous but I don't like documents fragmenting into lots
of smaller fragments.  In principle we could have a different file for each
fragment.  In any case we need at least N files, where there are N DOCTYPES.
For example one would contain all the digital signatures, another all the
math formula, another all the chemical formulae, and so on.  There is a
psychological barrier to editing documents based on this fragmentation that
would require very robust tools to overcome.  Maybe catalogs will help manage 
this.  [Personally I'd like the ability to keep the document components (each 
with their own DOCTYPE and logically distinct) in a single file.]

	P.

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust, domestic net connection
Virtual School of Molecular Sciences
http://www.vsms.nottingham.ac.uk/
Received on Thursday, 22 May 1997 18:58:45 UTC

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