[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Guess it reflects which document I found easier to use :-)
True, [1] uses xs:, but slips slightly when discussing
redefinition in terms of v1.xsd and v2.xsd.
As for [2], xsd: shows up in the examples
even if the schema uses xs:.
I wasn't arguing that xsd was the only abbreviation,
rather I was trying to add weight to Don's argument -
XSD is being used for file extensions (even by the
structures spec ) and is used
in the document most people start with when
learning W3C XML Schema - the primer.
Once the pattern is establshed, its hard to break.
Regards
Michael
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Robertsson [mailto:erobertsson@allette.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, 19 August 2002 10:29 AM
> To: Michael Leditschke
> Cc: donpark@docuverse.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
> Subject: Re: [xml-dev] WXS acronym?
>
>
> >
> >
> >>c) Most importantly, XSD is what people are using as file extension
> >>currently, so switching over to WXS at this point will only promote
> >>confusion.
> >>
> >>XSD is XSD and that is that.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I started using XSD because that is the namespace prefix used in
> >the W3C XML Schema primer. Namespace prefixes are a place
> >where you need a logical abbreviation, and this one was
> >provided courtesy of the W3C.
> >
> But the examples in the Structures spec [1], the "Schema for Datatype
> Definitions (normative)" [2] and the "Schema for Schemas (normative)"
> [3] uses the prefix "xs"...
>
> Cheers,
> /Eddie
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#schema
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#normative-schemaSchema
>
>
>
|
