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

[Murray Altheim <murray.altheim@eng.sun.com>]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> 
> * Lars Marius Garshol
> |
> | The specification should make it clear that conforming XTM 1.0
> | implementations must use namespaces ...

We do use namespaces, in a way that is completely conformant with
the XML Namespaces Recommendation. We have *deliberately* limited
their use to a default namespace for XTM, the 'xml:' namespace
that is part of XML itself (and which XML Base fits in), and finally
an XLink namespace in which we hardwire the prefix as "xlink".

It's very deliberate, we don't wish to allow prefixing, we don't
wish to allow XTM syntax to be *intermixed* into other prefixed
markup, etc. You haven't been at the meetings to partake in the
discussions we've had, but we're distinctly trying to minimize
XML Namespace Damage.

> | How do we do DTD validation, then?
[...] 
> However, since they have not, one way to do it is to use parameter
> entities to combine the namespace prefixes with the local names of
> elements[2]. This creates intensely ugly DTDs, but works around the
> problem.  My suggestion is that we use fixed prefixes in the DTDs
> meant to be read by humans, but create a special version to be used
> for validation.

Yes, and this is how I solved the problem in XHTML. We discussed this
at length and decided to have NO parameter entities in the DTD so that
nobody could muck with it from an internal subset. I agree*. This 
method is ugly and unnecessary for our needs.

Our DTDs are not "useless appendages", they work just fine for
validating XTM documents in a completely conformant and functional
way. There will be no 'name collisions' because we expressly 
prohibit XTM documents from containing such muck. They won't 
validate according to our DTD, which is *exactly* what we want.

We allow any <topicMap xmlns="our-URL"> node to be validated against
our DTD. This is the level of intermixing we allow. No more.

I hope we can drop this issue. It only reminds me of the interminable
mire the W3C has created for themselves on this issue. 

The important thing to remember here is that we are compliant with
the "law" and completely functional, and constraining things the we
want. Deliberately.

Murray

* you'll note that my version of XHTML (SHML), which existed years prior
to the W3C's version, is similar to XHTML but doesn't use this PE 
mechanism. The DTD is correspondingly MUCH easier to deal with.
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey     <mailto:altheim&#64;eng.sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

      In the evening
      The rice leaves in the garden
      Rustle in the autumn wind
      That blows through my reed hut.  -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/1/_/337252/_/975437160/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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