[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: David Megginson <david@megginson.com>
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 15:11:29 -0400 (EDT)
Paul Prescod writes:
> 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?
Perhaps I misremembered the original excerpt -- I thought that it had
to do with the Namespace URI pointing to the schema. I agree that
schemas should define rules for qualified names.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson david@megginson.com
http://www.megginson.com/
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)
|