- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 01:31:39 +0200
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@fas.harvard.edu>, peterl@netscape.com
Ian Hickson wrote: > I agree; but as devil's advocate I suppose one could argue that they > are not the same vocabulary. One may be a subset of another, but they > are not actually the same. For example, one allows <font> inside <p>, > whereas another does not. But the meaning of each element is the same in each of the three DTDs, so they should use the same namespace. Of course, if all the presentationasl stuff was put into a separate namespace, so that XHTML strict used the XHTML namespace and XHTML transitional used the XHTML and XHTML-P namespaces, well that would be better. > When|If Schemas are pointed to by namespace URIs (as suggested in > various packaging ideas recently), then namespaces will fill basically > the same role as PUBLIC/SYSTEM FPIs/DTDs, and so n (where here n=3) > namespaces will become a necessity. So in each DTD/XSchema that uses a given vocabiulary set, it has a different namespace identifier, then ther eis no ability to recognise different namespaces. So you have made namespace declarations be an exact analogue of doctype declarations, which already exist, and removed the ability to identify which vocabularies are being combined in a given document. -- Chris
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 1999 19:31:47 UTC