Lists Home |
Date Index |
Dare Obasanjo wrote:
>>From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:email@example.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