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

RE: SD5 - Namespaces - New Version 2

From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 00:16:27 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970524001436.00707e40@pophost.arbortext.com>
To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
At 16:58 1997 05 23 -0700, Andrew Layman wrote:
>Fair question.
>
><BOOK lib:loaned-to="Andrew">Last of the Mohecans</BOOK>
>
><BOOK>
>	<TITLE>Philosophy: Who Needs It</TITLE>
>	<PRICE banks:CURRENCY="USD">6.95</PRICE>	
></BOOK>
>
>We can get some integration of concepts across various doctypes by
>sharing attributes.

Andrew,

Thanks for the response.

I interpret this to mean you believe some attributes have "meaning"
independently of the element they qualify, as "currency" has meaning
independently of "price".  But, in general, do most attributes in fact
have unambiguous meaning independent of the element?  (I doubt it.)

Why would you define a <price> element *without* a "currency" attribute?
What is the advantage of having price's currency attribute defined in 
a namespace separate from that of price's namespace?  I cannot see the
point of your example unless you can give a case where:
	<PRICE some_other_namespace:CURRENCY="USD">
also makes sense and means something different from your example, and
I don't see it.

I still remain unconvinced it makes sense for attributes to come from
a namespace different from that of the element itself.

paul
Received on Saturday, 24 May 1997 01:20:16 UTC

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