[sc34wg3] CTM - prefix declaration

[Murray Altheim]

Robert Barta wrote:
[...]
> The
> 
>   http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/open/0975.htm
> 
> also has this:
> 
>> Binding the same prefix to different IRIs in the same CTM document
>> is an error.

Might I assume that the above statement is not reflected in the below
question? I.e., you are below posing an alternative to the issue stated
above as an error, as in this:

     %prefix a http://example
     %prefix a http://acme

[just to clarify]

> Can someone educate me, why a
> 
>   %prefix a http://example
>   %prefix b http://example
> 
> should be harmful? CTM treats these prefixes NON-SEMANTICALLY (bad,
> but so be it), so it treats them in the same way as XML namespaces.

Bad? I don't see any harm at all, either syntactically or semantically.
There's no semantic binding in the namespace declaration itself, as the
bindings only arrive with tokens within the namespace. And there can be
no harm in having multiple prefixes for the same namespace given that
the prefixes aren't part of the semantics, they're part of the document
syntax.

Prefixes should be (and to my understanding) *always* treated "non-
semantically" since they are part of document syntax.

If that's what I might assume this is all about -- rather unclear.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray07 at altheim.com>                           ===  = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/                                     = =  ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk               = =  = =

       Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
       Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
       The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
       Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
                                       -- The Blue Cliff Record