[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: XML Schema built-in data type namespace URI.
- From: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com, 'KAZUMI Saito' <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:36:57 -0500
Biron,Paul V wrote:
> Because the built-in datatypes are intended to be used both by the schema
> language and by other specifications, it was decided that there should be
> two namespaces. The XML Schema namespace
> (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema) is to be used to identify a built-in
> datatype whenever that type is being used IN THE CONTEXT of an XML
> the XML Schema Datatypes namespace
> (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes) is to be used to indentify
> schema datatype whenver that type is being used OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of an
> XML Schema.
> I hope this helps.
A big problem here is that QNames and URIs are not being used in a web
interoperable or meaningful way. Are you saying that the concept
"unsignedInt" as named by
is different than the concept "unsignedInt" as named by:
That would be weird, and I don't think you mean to say this. If you do
please provide a rationale that fits with how we expect things like URI
references and QNames to fit into other W3C recomendations such as XML
Namespaces, XLink/XPointer, RDF etc. The more I read these and similar
details, the more confused I get about the overall vision of the Web as
embodied by the suite of W3C Recommendations.