> james anderson writes:
>
> ...
>
> > 2. if the schema is present, should the processor permit local
> > additions to the namespace, that is the introduction of names which
> > are not present in the external definition? should the processor
> > permit redefinition of existing names from the namespace?
>
> This would go against the basic principle of namespaces (globalisation
> and uniquification of names), since two documents could create
> different extensions to the same namespace. ...
>
which is ok, if the issue is architectural forms, but bad if one is talking
about namespaces...
?
> I'm not certain that I understand the issue here -- why would someone
> not bring additional element types in from a different namespace,
> instead of adding private extensions to an existing one?
>
to "capture" an entity definition.
> > (or rather, it's almost possible: there's a small problem, that the
> > wd-standard precludes qualified entity names. why?)
>
> The namespace spec allows element type names, attribute names, and PI
> targets to be associated with a URI. (External) entity and notation
> names are already associated with a URI.
but not identifiable.