Re: More on Namespaces (also long, but also optimistic)
james anderson (James.Anderson@mecomnet.de)
Mon, 17 Aug 1998 00:53:12 +0200
Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Note that the binding which effects the VHG:termEntry needs to be in the
> >containing element. Otherwise a consistent mechamism cannot be used to
> >determine its corresponding universal name unambiguously, given possible
> >attribute defaults.
> >
> ><?xml version="1.0"?>
> ><!DOCTYPE VanityHG [
> > <!ENTITY %VanityDTD
> > SYSTEM "http://VanityHouseAndGarden.org.uk/DTD/VHG.dtd" >
> > <!ENTITY %VHGDTD
> > SYSTEM "http://VHG.org.uk/DTD/VHG.dtd" >
> > <!-- assert the prefix for Vanity... here -->
> > <?namespace prefix='' ns="http://VanityHouseAndGarden.org.uk" ?>
> > %VanityDTD
> > <!-- assert the prefix for VHG... here -->
> > <?namespace prefix='' ns="http://vhg.org.uk" ?>
> > %VHGDTD
> > <!-- i suggest that the scope of the preceeding namespace end here -->
> >]>
> >
> ><?namespace prefix='VanityHG' ns="http://VanityHouseAndGarden.org.uk" ?>
>
> I'm lost with these PIs. I thought they had disappeared....
>
Ah, but since the standard no asserts an interpretation for them which
precludes validation, a processor is free to use them in a way which enables validation.
Take them, for the sake of discussion, to establish a prefix/URI binding for
which the scope is the remainder of the logical entity in which they appear.