- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:54:17 +0100 (CET)
- To: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- cc: "'www-tag'" <www-tag@w3.org>
Norm,
I'm speaking here as a relative newcomer to the depths of XML,
but I have a feeling that you wish for three things which
together contradict themselves:
1) maintain tight control over your vocabulary,
2) extend it nevertheless in specific applications,
3) validate the extended documents according to the original
tight schema.
Why does the specific application not validate against a
specific schema? You could get the benefit of validating the
extensions, too.
I assume the knowledge that the extended documents are not
directed at the original applications but at other applications
which are controlled by a vocabulary other than the tight
original one.
Other than the time to recode the applications more cleanly (as
usual with such Occam's cuts) I don't think we would loose
anything by dropping PIs from XML.
Best regards,
Jacek Kopecky
Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
http://www.systinet.com/
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Norman Walsh wrote:
> / "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org> was heard to say:
> | The idea of namespaces is that you can use one to define a new
> | element to do just what you wanted to do with the PI, but you give
> | it a URI name, and allow possibilities such as using existing tools
> | for parsing and test for and converting them and so on.
> | What is there which stops you using an element?
>
> I have a vocabulary over which I wish to maintain tight control (one
> which does not and will not allow optional elements from random
> namespaces). But I still want the ability to sometimes stick in little
> bits of application-specific info.
>
> Be seeing you,
> norm
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 07:54:21 UTC