From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
To: "Matt G." <matt_g_@hotmail.com>
CC: docbook@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: DOCBOOK: Re: Modularity and PE reorganization
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 09:13:17 -0400
| Wouldn't using physical tokens, for each element, imply that they
| can only belong to one class or module? Certainly, where multiple
| interpretations of a term exist (e.g. "module", "class",
| "package", etc.), some duplication is acceptable and should even
| be encouraged.
One of the constraints of the Maler+Andaloussi[1] class/mixture
methodology is that an element can appear in at most one class.
Yes, this is sensible for DTD-authoring, since DTDs are oriented towards a
context-free grammar.| Using separate namespaces (if possible) for each module would help
| disambiguate collisions (for purposes of authoring, documenting,
| and processing, actually).
If they are in different namespaces, they are not the same.
I think that's my point. Where a given element has multiple meanings -
particularly if the distinction is due to the term being used in unrelated
topics - the best approach might be to add it to both sets. Of course,
you'd want to be able to distinguish them, so you really want them to be
separate elements - that falls out of namespace usage, nicely.