"Chris Wilper" <> wrote:
| It seems that a doctype exists for every element that can be used as a
| root element in a document.
AFAIK, any element can be a root in an appropriate document: there is no
way to privilege some elements or to prohibit others. The notion of a
"document type" is underspecified in SGML too; in particular, there is no
support for referencing a type (i.e. "declaring" a type by canonical name
only, as in "This is a Docbook document".) See, e.g.
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
| Since an element can be defined as belonging to a namespace,
I think you mean "XML namespace", which makes it true by definition. In
the ordinary sense of "namespace", a SGML/XML document has many of them in
a single document, all of them taken together comprising a taxonomy (or,
if you like, "vocabulary".)
| a corresponding doctype could similarly be defined -- and would naturally
| fit within the same namespace,
What does this mean?
Wouldn't it be better to have a name for the taxonomy as a whole, within
which components such as "elements" could be identified?
I sense some old debates cropping up again.
