David,
See inline. I see you are flogging the
CAM-redefines-XML-namespace-and-XML-Schema idea.
:-)
>I stressed the above to show how this is different. I guess I
>never bought into the premise from the W3C that
>you HAD to have a unique prefix on your XML, else
>it would not "work". I find this flawed, and further more
>users react badly when asked to add prefixes to tags,
>and mapping software reacts even worse when asked
>to manage and move content so labelled.
>
Whoa! Are we debating the use of namespaces here? We were discussing a
"registry of namespaces", and certainly not a registry of namespace
prefixes, and even more certainly we were not discussing the
apropriateness of XML namespaces.
The idea that every bit of XML is a member of a namespace is A Good
Thing. And if "mapping" software has a problem dealing with properly
namespaced XML, perhaps those mapping software vendors ought to make use
of one of the 15+ open source XML parsers, that can handle namespaces.
Hell, a few years ago I wrote a XML parser using regular expressions
that dealt with namespaces. Its not hard. I'd like to know why you
think namespaces are flawed.
>
>Here's how the adaptive approach works instead - and
>I'll talk about real world parallel in live systems to
>illustrate this too.
>
>A registry server is identified to a federation server,
>and within your local context (an assembly) it is
>assigned an alias (some short character sequence)
>with an associated physical address to the interface
>to that registry.
>
>Now I use that alias as a prefix to a UID value, to
>identify the reference I need as a content cross-reference
>within my CAM template.
>\
>
How is this illustration any different from: xmlns:foo="urn:foo",
<foo:element />?
>Now of course - I do not care that someone else is
>using the exact same alias for some other registry
>in their CAM document elsewhere.
>
As in XML, I don't care if someone else is using xmlns:31337="urn:foo".
It still resolves to urn:foo.
>
>This could only be a potential issue if another
>assembly document included into it both mine
>and the other assembly. But even then - using the
>include as a prefix - negates the collisions.
>
>The power of this system is that anyone can
>call any <tagsoup> item whatever they need to
>in their local context and usage, but denote it
>in the content reference:
><thisworks>
> <mine>
> <city/>
> </mine>
> <his>
> <city/>
> </his>
> <yours>
> <city/>
> </yours>
></thisworks>
>
>and then
>
><contentreferences>
> <registry alias="mine" address="http://foobar.com/port:1000"/>
> <registry alias="yours" address="http://somebar.com/port:9000"/>
> <content name='//mine/city' reference="mine:UID010001"/>
> <content name='//his/city' reference="mine:UID078901"/>
> <content name='//yours/city' reference="yours:UID055501"/>
></contentreferences>
>
>Bottom line is this simple and clean means makes the CAM
>system a breeze when including content from multiple sub-assemblies.
>Essentially you never need to worry about collisions in the underlying
>content fragments - because you can always resolve references.
>
>Of course by doing this we remove the need for namespace police,
>and even the need to create complex mechanisms in our ebXML
>Registry implementations to support the namespace police.
>
>
This looks more convoluted than a namespace based solution.
-Matt
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
