Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: Lisa Rein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Uche Ogbuji <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 11:27:25 -0800
> > On the contrary. It almost seems as if you haven't been reading any of
> > the relevant specs covering these issues (XML Namespaces and XML
> > Schemas).
Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> I've read XML Schemas only once. I hope not to have to repeat the
> experience any time soon. But I don't see that it is relevant. I don't
> use XML Schemas, but I do use namespaces.
It's relevant because the XML Schema structures specification provides
the syntactical "glue" to connect to a schema to a document for
validation (what would probably be getting done if the URI was
dereferenced, as is perfectly legal, blah, blah blah).
If there were a single standardized way of referencing a schema from an
XML document, and dereferencing a schema from a namespace URI violated
it in some way, it would be a good reason to not do it. But since it
(the namespace URI value) is actually one of the "normal" ways to
associate an XML document with its schema, it seems to suggest that this
is a good idea, and that it "works" and might be useful for other
Or certainly, it wouldn't hurt anything :-)
And if you already knew everything I brought up in that last e-mail
about XML Namespaces, then do you agree with me that these dereferencing
issues are non-issues, because it doesn't look like we would be breaking
anything in the process.
Or as Sean Palmer put it so eloquently:
"To dereference or not dereference: (it just) doesn't matter")
Because I'm thoroughly confused about how anyone who thoroughly
understood XML Namespaces could argue about this whole "Tool X" taking
over the world with the evil defacto schema implementation bull.