Re: [humanmarkup-comment] Referents

["Emmanuil Batsis (Manos)" <mbatsis@humanmarkup.org>]

Rex Brooks wrote:

> Looks good to me. Maybe Len can do a DTD? I know he's working on the 
> DTD for the semiotic engine. DTDs are arguably simpler in that they 
> narrow focus onto very specific kinds of documents.

I hear that namespaces are a pain to use with DTDs, but Len can decide 
for himself. We can use plain XML examples as a common ground to 
communicate; each one can work on different schemata (today I learned 
that the word schemata includes DTDs).

> I'm inclined toward default namespaces, but I could be persuaded 
> against it if we get our elements and attributes qualified without 
> having elements or attributes with the same name but different 
> definitions in other vocabularies with which we need to be compatible 
> and consistent.


The problem with a default namespace is that it applies to elements but 
not attributes. I just think about erasing possible conflicts with other 
languages and let authors use the namespace explicitly to match nodes.

It's worth noting that the RDF WG forced attribute qualification for 
those reasons as well.

I would propose using CVS to work on schema files; a number of people 
may edit the same file, especially when it comes to W3C Schemas.

Would you agree on using sourceforge? Are there any problems with that? 
Can OASIS or an individual offer another solution?

Regards,

Manos