[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RDDL and XML Schemas Proposed Recommendation
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Simon St.Laurent" <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 17:37:10 -0500
Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> "Simon St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > At 03:18 PM 3/17/01 -0800, Jeff Rafter wrote:
> > >This is starting to get exciting-- has anyone tried to resolve that new
> > >Schema namespace URL?
> > >
> > >http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
> > >
> > >I think you will like what you find... suddenly I find myself loving
> > >human readable description at the end of the rainbow.
> > Now that makes me happy!
> > Many thanks to whoever in the W3C XML Schema WG decided to do that!
> I proposed it, the WG and the W3C staff agreed to it, I implemented
> It's not finished yet -- indeed it's barely started. I'll announce
> more here when it's in better shape.
This is great.
I presume that the new nature for XML Schema ought be
This gets me thinking about RDDLs interactions with URI persistance
policies - it would be good if in some way we can say:
xxx URI is equivalent to yyy URI
... so when you ask for something with xxx nature, treat something with yyy
nature as equivalent.
xxx URI is a subset of yyy URI
... so when you as for something with yyy nature accept something with xxx
what do people think? how should we handle the issue of new versions of