Arjun Ray wrote:
>  |
>  | it appears that we do not agree, that the mechanisms which you describe
>  | would in general be sufficient to address documents of the form of the
>  | last example.
>  
>  The last example is no more and no less arbitrary than the others.  That's
>  the point: you start from an arbitrary configuration and proceed to map
>  vocabularies.  It isn't necessary that an author actually visualize this
>  as what he's doing; it's only what he actually winds up doing anyway.
>  

where the last document is understood to be the product of arbitrary, not
predetermined combination - for example where it is not predetermined which
<one>  element comes befoe the other <one> element, i have not yet understood
the control information of the kind which i have seen for xml-map to be
sufficient to relabel it.

>  If you're asking whether the control information needs to be physically
>  present in the undiscriminated form of the document, the general answer is
>  no.  You could do it through an ancillary process such as an LPD, or an
>  instance specific XSLT "transform" or whatever.  (Using an internal subset
>  one could use the much maligned attribute defaulting method to save on
>  markup in the instance.

this would require distinct names. [doesn't matter. it's not a material issue,
'cause i'm not concerned about where the control information is.]

>     There are many ways to skin this cat; the fact
>  remains, though, that *some* mapping - even a trivial identity one - is
>  inherently necessary in associating an external vocabulary with the native
>  element structure of a document.)
>  
>  | namespaces are specified as a means to ensure that graph labels remain
>  | unique under arbitrary graph combinations. the techiques you describe
>  | appear to be intended to effect arbitrary graph relabeling.
>  
>  Actually, (sub)graph labelling, not graph relabelling.  The original graph
>  has no scrutable labels, only structure.

inscrutable, and even ignored, is not the same as none. given that xml
structure has but two dimensions, dominance and sequence, absent predetermined
sequencing constraints, one is left with dominance only. which is not always
sufficient. one has to put up with inscrutable.

>  
>  | neither is sufficent for all cases.
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org> , an
initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> 

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>