Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Jonathan Borden" <email@example.com>
- To: "Rick Jelliffe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:05:37 -0400
Why ought namespaces be dead? Is Biztalk that important? Just don't use
Biztalk or the XML Data namespace if you don't want it, this is a free WWW!
> Both BizTalk and the recent XML Schema draft use the namespace identifier
> schema identifier.
> In other words, namespaces are dead (for database documents) as ways of
> naming elements independent of any other considerations. They are now
Not always. You can always use a "urn:" based namespace URI to prevent
linking the namespace to a schema.
> Congratulations to all concerned.
> The practical question is now what to do? Should we just lay down and die;
> we go back to architectural forms; should we invent a parallel namespace
PI that is
> concerned with uniquely identifying names and not with tieing elements to
> The first thing that is required is for W3C to create a Schema PI, in a
> fashion to the Stylesheet PI. In the absense of that mechanism, the
> excuse themselves that there is nothing else to use for invoking schemas
Agreed. This is an easier to understand, more flexible solution which is
more akin to the present mechanism of associating a DTD to a document than
the proposed linkage to the namespace URI.
One issue to consider, however, is the impact of either mechanism of
schema/namespace association on how a document containing elements from
multiple namespaces ought be validated.
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
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)