Re: [xtm-wg] Comments on the syntax proposal

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

[lars]
The specification should make it clear that conforming XTM 1.0
implementations must use namespaces ...

Forgive my density, but why?

Can't we get the semantics of xlink processing without necessarily
having an (namespace-using) link processor?

[lars]
... and that recognition of names defined by XLink, XBase and XTM must
be based on a namespace view of the document rather than an XML 1.0
view. ...

Ditto on density, and what is a "namespace" view? What does it buy us
that XML 1.0 processing does not?

[lars]
In other words, the namespace prefixes used in the XTM 1.0 DTD are not
the only possible namespace prefixes for these namespaces.

You mean "xlink:" could change to something else? How do we do DTD
validation, then?

S.




=====
<!-- "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/337252/_/974822743/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com