Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Norman Walsh <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:30:06 -0400
/ Rick JELLIFFE <email@example.com> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
| > But to say that you can mix them "willy nilly" violates the principals
| > of validity at their core.
| That's a key point, I think. Roger Costello has argued very strongly
| that namespaced-vocabularies should have schema languages which are open
| by default rather than closed.
I don't agree. If you want something to be open, you should have to
declare it so. But I don't much care about the default, as I'm going
to turn the knob to "closed" on my schemas explicitly no matter what
the default is.
| The utility of the idea of "content model" almost disappears with open,
| namespaced schemas.
That's because the notion of validity almost disappears, IMHO.
| But start adding namespace-awareness and I think they are being
| stretched far beyond their capabilities: if you add namespace-awareness
| the next stumbling block woudl be openness, as James and Norman are
| bringing out.
I don't want openness, so I don't see the problem :-)
Be seeing you,
Norman.Walsh@East.Sun.COM | Puritanism--The haunting fear that someone,
XML Technology Center | somewhere may be happy.--H.L. Mencken
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |