[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>
- To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:36:18 -0700
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Right or wrong, that's what the spec says. So either XML
> Schema is wrong, or
> > XML Namespaces is wrong.
> One bit of bad news for you then - Appendix A of Namespaces in XML is
> non-normative. I'm not sure that really matters, but it doesn't help.
Whoops. I should have heeded that. And as Richard Tobin just pointed out,
XML Namespaces is also using the word "type" differently than XML Schema. I
think the specs need to employ more consistent terminology on these matters,
as this just lends itself to confusion.
So I guess I have to go back to the perspective that I just changed my mind
about a few minutes ago. Although the inconsistent use of terminology
between specs is confusing (especially in that non-normative section of XML
Namespaces) there is nothing in XML 1.0 or XML Namespaces that is
inconsistent with the notion of local elements.
Well, once again xml-dev posters prove they have more to say about "what's
in a name" than Shakespeare ever dreamt of. ;-)