[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
dareo@microsoft.com (Dare Obasanjo) writes:
>"All child element information items of the SOAP Body element
>information item:
>
>SHOULD have a [namespace name] property which has a value, that is the
>name of the element SHOULD be namespace qualified."
>
>Of course, nothing stops you from being pedantic and arguing that a
>SHOULD is not a requirement.
That's not pedantry - that's reading.
>There is also
>http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-
>attribute-node which may require banning attributes without a
>namespace name.
Now that's pedantry. I don't think RDF syntax is amenable to XML
schemas of any variety (maybe with tons of co-occurrence constraints and
a lot of open models?), and I certainly don't think RDF syntax in its
present form should _ever_ be considered an example of how to write XML.
If there's a contest for most generally perverse use of XML, RDF/XML is
definitely on the short list.
>Anyway the point is that there are XML vocabularies that have this
>characteristic which unfortunately cannot be described by any of the
>popular XML schema languages.
It's questionable whether SOAP is actually an XML vocabulary, having
banned DOCTYPE, but it's even more doubtful that such lousy ideas
deserve to be allowed to infect other specifications.
How complicated can we make namespace processing?
--
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
