[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
- From: Ronald Bourret <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:23:02 -0700
"Fuchs, Matthew" wrote:
> I think this is close, certainly closer than some are willing to
> acknowledge. One important thing is, you don't distinguish between valid
> and well-formed. You are basically looking at things from a validation, or
> well-typed, perspective - as do I. Evan and Tim are looking at it from a
> well-formed perspective. The NS rec means different things for each camp.
> Let me slightly rewrite what you've written, and perhaps that will work
This pretty much sums it up. And since XML allows well-formedness, we
need to support this.
I think it also brings out a fundamental schizophrenia about XML
Schemas. Are these a type system (I'm allowed to say that -- check the
heading of this thread :) or a constraint system? Maybe it would make
more sense for XML Schemas to go hog wild on types -- since this is what
the metadata people need anyway -- and delegate constraints to something
far more versatile, such as Schematron.