- From: T.V Raman <raman@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:50:06 -0800
- To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
- Cc: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk, www-tag@w3.org
Noah makes a good point. As an example, consider html:iframe --- it's an elaborating element best I can tell. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com writes: > > 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----- > > > -- Best Regards, --raman Title: Research Scientist Email: raman@google.com WWW: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/ Google: tv+raman GTalk: raman@google.com, tv.raman.tv@gmail.com PGP: http://emacspeak.sf.net/raman/raman-almaden.asc
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 21:53:19 UTC