- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:11:23 -0500
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Thanks for starting this off, Henry. In the next day or so I hope to send some thoughts on where I think this fits into the bigger picture, but for now let me just comment on one more isolated concern. Specifically, I'm not happy with the notion of "Elaborating Namespaces" as opposed to, perhaps, "Elaborating Elements" or "Elaborating Element Tags". Would the discussion be interestingly different if, instead of <xi:include xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"> we had: <xml:include>? In other words, would we tell a very different story if the Core WG had decided to put the include element in the xml: namespace instead of in a new one? Various communities seem to keep drifting toward assuming that namespaces in general have semantics like this, and I'm very unhappy with that. I certainly don't think we should preclude particular namespaces being documented as having only the names of elements that have certain particular semantics (e.g. they're all elborating, in the sense you use the term), but that's a special case. In general, for an XML Functions analysis, it's the individual elements, named by expanded names, that should have particular semantics, and there should be no need for all the elements in a given namespace to have similar semantics. Indeed, even before we get to ealborating elements like <xi:include>, or quoting elements, the XML Functions analysis has to tell a story about the semantics of the root element of a document, and recursively down from there. Again, I think it's elements not namespaces that should be the focus. So, for example, I think it's more useful to talk about the semantics of "an XML document which has as its root <h:html xmlns:h='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>" than it is to talk about "the semantics of documents from the XHTML namespace. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 -------------------------------------- ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson) Sent by: www-tag-request@w3.org 01/30/2007 12:37 PM To: www-tag@w3.org cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM) Subject: First thoughts about infoset elaboration -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Further to our discussion in Cambridge [1] and the action I took [2] I've produced a thought piece on what a definition of our idea of 'elaborated infoset' might look like: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/elabInfoset.html Comments welcome, ht [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2006/12/11-minutes#item07 [2] http://www.w3.org/2006/12/11-tagmem-minutes.html#action06 - -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh Half-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFv4JUkjnJixAXWBoRAvOWAJwJpvWTpp03bM7hnF+Wo9F2WyDOUwCfYzcX KIAq6os8paBxmuiKcFtCkH4= =TgEX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 21:11:25 UTC