- From: Joe English <jenglish@crl.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 12:52:57 -0800
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@www10.w3.org
Ralph Ferris <ralph@fsc.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > I don't consider my proposal to be "namespace pollution." I consider it to > be method over-riding, in the manner of object-oriented programming. > [...] > One solution is to define these tags as architecural forms, and make these > architectural forms part of a default set that's used by XML. > [...] > Pre-defined interfaces with over-rideable methods are what make component > software work. Call these "component DTDs." This sounds like a good approach, as long as the XML spec also mandates some form of declaration to enable specific architectures. IOW, predefined element types are OK, but we should make sure that documents are only interpreted with predefined semantics if the author explicitly asks for that to happen. This may not seem like a big deal if there is only one predefined element type ("use any GI you like, as long as it's not ALINK") but if, as I suspect, there end up being many different XML sub-architectures each with its own collection of forms, protecting authors from unforeseen nameclashes will be important. --Joe English jenglish@crl.com
Received on Monday, 13 January 1997 16:00:10 UTC