Re: Names, namespaces and languages

Mary Holstege writes:

> One way to make sense of the abstract concept of
> the XHTML p element is to regard it as the set of
> all possible specific XHTML p element definitions.
> A schema component path can be used to find a
> particular component (or set of components) in the
> context of a particular schema; but it can be used
> to identify any and all such potential components
> out of the context of that particular schema.

I think this begs a question:  to what degree is what we're looking for 
grounded in any schemas?  In the case of the Schema WG's SCDs, the answer 
is yes by definition.  In the case of:  "The p element in the XHTML 
namespace.", there's a question as to whether that's in the collection of 
all possible XHTML schemas, as you suggest, or whether it exists in 
principle even if no schemas are ever written?

One answer is:  don't worry about it.  The original TAG use case was 
specifically in Simple Types, not elements.  Those are pretty well 
grounded in schemas, and so your argument holds.  For the element example 
you give, I'm less sure.  Shouldn't I be able to write a URI identifier 
for {XHTML,p} without first writing a schema?  Not sure.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2005 20:19:28 UTC