Is that really true? If there was going to be an official content to wh=
at the
URI of a namespace
points too, shouldn't it just be a definition of the element names its =
supports
and some human
consumable documentation of what they should be used for in a conformin=
g
document?
It seems that mixing up namespaces and DTDs/Schemas is incorrect. DTDs =
and
Schemas
would *use* namespaces, but a namespace itself should be just a namespa=
ce,
shouldn't it?
Making a namespace and a DTD/Schema one and the same means that the tag=
s in that
namespace could only be used in a document that matched that DTD/Schema=
, which
obviously would not be optimal for very open ended sets of tags.
Of course, in many cases, there would be a namespace 'definition' and a=
DTD/Schema that
was intended as its primary use I guess. But, overall, does it not make=
sense
that the
namespace 'definition' just define the tags it can support since that's=
really
all that a
namespace is: a set of tags that have meaning as a group?
Just a thought...
----------------------------------------
Dean Roddey
Software Weenie
IBM Center for Java Technology - Silicon Valley
roddey@us.ibm.com
=