- From: Paul Grosso <paul@arbortext.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 18:59:51 -0500
- To: w3c-sgml-wg@w3.org
I don't have much to say about namespaces yet, except that I pretty much agree with what Tim says, and I don't think subdoc (at least as currently defines in 8879) is the answer. I think what we need will require something beyond what 8879 offers us now, so I think it can't be part of XML-lang at this time, and I think we better start developing something to send to WG8 in time to have it considered at the groups next (when?) meeting. paul At 08:59 1997 05 19 -0700, Tim Bray wrote: >> From: Jean Paoli <jeanpa@microsoft.com> >> >> Consumers of a document may need to verify that it uses a known >> namespace.... >> Proposal: Every element comes from some schema, which becomes the >> default schema for that element. The names within the default schema >> are ... > >The demand for namespace machinery is sudden but, it seems, overwhelming. >The demand can't be ignored. Once again, it should go in a separate >volume in the lang/link/display series. Once again, it should be done >in an 8879-compatible way. Once again, it can't be done properly by >July 1. > >One detail point. Using the dot '.' to separate schema & name may >have a nice O-O feel but lots of element types already have dots in >them. We should change XML-lang to add ':' or some other handy >character to the name repertoire, but forbid its use except for >this purpose. Then people can use any legal XML name for their >schematized element types. -T.
Received on Monday, 19 May 1997 20:03:49 UTC