Altova Mailing List Archives


Re: [xml-dev] Vocabulary Combination

From: Arjun Ray <aray@----.--->
To: xml-dev@-----.---.---
Date: 5/29/2003 7:01:00 AM
Tim Bray <tbray@t...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray wrote:

|> it is written: "The only reason namespaces exist, once again, is to give
|> elements and attributes programmer-friendly names that will be unique
|> across the whole Internet."
| 
| Don't be silly.  Why would you want names that are unique on a wide 
| scale if you weren't going to be combining vocabularies?

*I* don't want them.  In fact, I don't even need them.  (All I'd need is
unique names for vocabularies, the good ol' PUBLIC id concept.)  I'm just
curious about a pretty common delusion about the problem.  

| Interesting thought experiment.  Why did you leave the <h:head><h:title> 
| construct out of the HTML view?

Editing accident, sorry.

| Upon reflection, I'm not convinced that this "views" approach is useful.

I find it very useful.
 
| Merely subtracting any of the markup vocabularies is almost never apt 
| the right thing to do. 

That's ridiculous.  That would make you hostage to anyone who stuck in a
namespace/vocabulary that you had no clue about.  To announce, in instance
markup, that a vocabulary is in play is to allow for the possibility of
*partial* understanding - which happens to include the possibility of "all
I need to know anyway".  

| If what you're trying to do is display this, 

I was careful to leave specific purposes out.  Why have generalized markup
if all w're supposed to be interested in is specific purposes and no
others?  

|> If this is acceptable, then my question is: What is the decision procedure
|> by which a generic parser-level filter could generate these views, if it's
|> to take namespaced names as a guide?
| 
| Totally application-dependent, I'd think.  It doesn't seem likely that 
| "generic parser-level filter" is a very useful construct.

You just found one yourself, with the RDBMS loader application.

| > "It can't be done" is an acceptable answer, btw.
| 
| In the general case, it can't be done.  The namespaces don't give you 
| enough information. 

Right.  Namespaces are neither necessary nor sufficient for the general
problem of vocabulary combination.

As we knew a long time ago.

Disclaimer

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.