[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Tim Bray <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 10:48:42 -0700
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Bray [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 2:23 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
> At 12:59 PM 24/08/01 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote:
> > In the meantime, in order to do the least
> >harm to future solutions, I advocate completely excising
> local elements from
> >the namespace mechanism by applying Andrew Layman's Wittgensteinian
> >interpretation of unqualified as meaning out of the scope of
> the namespace
> >rec. entirely.
> If by "unqualified" you mean "unprefixed, and with no default
> namespace in effect" then Andrew's interpretation is the only
> one that is consistent with a sane reading of the namespace rec.
> [And this seems to be the position adopted by XSD; does
> anyone disagree?] -Tim
Yes, that's precisely what I mean. However, "consistent" and "sane" were
not often a characteristic of readings of the namespace rec I've been privy