[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- To: XMLDev list <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:19:53 -0400
David Megginson wrote:
>
> > The quoted section 4.1 of the XSchema draft seems to directly
> > contradict his view of what's right, so XML did not "get it
> > right". Am I missing something again?
>
> Yes -- XML-Schema is not XML. XML-Schema is (currently) getting it
> wrong, but they're in the early drafts, so I still hope for their
> redemption.
I don't know what you are talking about. A schema rule is inherently
triggered based on hooks within the document. What could be a more
natural hook than the universal name for an element type?
This isn't saying that an element type is necessarily defined by a
schema. It is saying that a schema rule is triggered by an element type.
...seems logical to me... Among other things, it fits hedge automata
theory perfectly.
Paul Prescod
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)
|
