[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> writes:
<snip/>
> HT said:
> >That's simply false -- any sensible use of QNames would involve a W3C
> >XML Schema or other type-assigning schema language,
>
> No, Henry. A substtantial proportion of application use no schemas
> whatsoever past design time. Yes, IF you have a schema language
> that supports QNames as a type and IF you have a such a schema for
> the XML language you're using and IF you're willing to take
> the overhead of schema validation at run-time, THEN there
> is a way for an XML processor to tell whether QNames are
> hiding in content. Otherwise not. -Tim
1) I was overly terse above, and at least one other respondent has not
unreasonably misunderstood -- I should have said "any sensible use of
QNames _in content_ . . ." (as opposed to for element and attribute
names).
2) I guess what I'm saying is that I'm betting that applications which
find QNames in content useful will also find that type-enriched
infosets are useful too, and be willing to pay the price of getting
them. I understand that you're betting the other way. Time will tell.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
|
