[
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 15:23:22 -0400
David Megginson wrote:
>
> > 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.
Maybe I misunderstood it. Whatever.
> I agree that
> schemas should define rules for qualified names.
Great.
Do you agree that it will be vital to be able to declare whether an
element was meant to validate against the "strict" or "loose" schema (if
indeed there are both)?
If so, do you further agree that that information should be expressed in
a namespace? What other mechanism could we use to know whether to apply
the loose:P content model or the strict:P model?
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)
|
