Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Rick Jelliffe" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "'XML Dev'" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 10:44:16 +1000
From: Andrew Layman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>If we follow the principle of cleanly separating data from its
>we want firm ties to the definition of data, and loose ties to its
A schema is "processing" not "data": it is tied to whatever applications
understand the schema format. Editing, creating and validating against a
schema are all applications.
There is no schema language yet that can express all useful constraints.
To propose a mechanism that does not allow a plurality of schemas is, in
fact, to say that the schema language should defines the (bounds of the)
possible schemas: if XML-Data does not support a constraint, it cannot
be part of schemas. This is putting the cart before the horse.
It is not that the namespace URI identifies a schema that it is the
problem, it is :
* the notion that a document has only *one* schema and
* there is no mechanism yet to allow alternative schemas to be assigned.
If W3C made a mechanism to allow alternative schemas (like Jonathon
Bordon's recent post), then the namespace URI could be overloaded to
provide a schema, as a defaulting behaviour in the absense of a PI. But
it is bad for the WWW if there is no mechanism to allow alternatives;
without such a mechanism, requiring overloaded use of the namespace URL
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)