Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Andrew Layman <email@example.com>
- To: 'james anderson' <James.Anderson@mecom.mixx.de>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 19:01:05 -0800
The namespaces design does not specify any particular notation in which a
schema would be written. So it certainly does not say that an application
must read the schema (if one exists). It takes no stand on what is in a
schema, including whether schemas can reference other schemas. This is just
the basic material needed to make names unique web-wide, but a lot of work
and thinking still needs to be done regarding defining good schema
notations, APIs for their use, etc.
However, regarding whether an application can "redefine" existing names from
a namespace, the answer to that must be "no." The owner of a namespace
defines the names in it. These can be processed any way that an application
likes, including ignoring the definition, but that is not the same as
redefinition. Certainly an application can also map from one named thing to
another, as for example architectures allows, but that is mapping, not
> -----Original Message-----
> From: james anderson [SMTP:James.Anderson@mecom.mixx.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 3:56 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Andrew Layman
> Subject: Namespaces in XML: 3.1 the example 
> re 3.1 (the o/l bookstore example)
> the discussion raises a number of questions
> 1. when a namespace-pi binds a namespace, is it intended that, should a
> have been specified, a processor verify (immediately?, later?, when?) the
> existence (the content?) of the specified schema?
> is this a well-formedness or a validity issue?
> 2. if the schema is present, should the processor permit local additions
> to the
> namespace, that is the introduction of names which are not present in the
> external definition?
> should the processor permit redefinition of existing names from the
> if the answer to first is "no", then cross-references are no problem.
> if the answer to the second is yes, then it would be possible to place
> hooks in
> a dtd by selective entity placement, which entities the using document/dtd
> be free to (re)define.
> (or rather, it's almost possible: there's a small problem, that the
> precludes qualified entity names. why?)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)