OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] RelaxNG question

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Dare Obasanjo wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:bill.dehora@propylon.com] 
>>I read the section and saw nothing that required the negation 
>>of non-namespaced names. Unless you're looking to 
>>overconstrain SOAP, perhaps you can explain your thinking, or 
>>get back on topic.
> "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. 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. 

I'm really sorry, but you're just not making sense. I never said 
SHOULD is not a requirement - and by the by, drawing this sort of 
bogus conclusion is bad form.

When I said 'overconstrain' I was thinking about turning SHOULD into 
MUST, which is what you'd be doing by using a schema to enforce the 
absence of non-namespaced element names as SOAP body children - ie 
you'd be subsetting SOAP.

> 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. 

Like I said - no doubt,

I imagine we're way off topic now. I'll wait and see if Tim Bray 
found the rng helpful.

Bill de hÓra

Technical Architect


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS