XSchema Spec, Section 3, Draft 1 (Namespaces)

[Simon St.Laurent]

James Anderson wrote:
>the extra resolution mechanism, should it be necessary, still does not 
>require an additional means of expression.

We have two choices:
a) we can use the same means of expression already provided, and make it 
harder to distinguish XSchema namespaces from the namespaces used for the 
contents of those XSchemas.  It may seem more elegant to those who would like 
one and only one way of declaring something.

b) we can use an additional means of expression.  This may not seem as 
consistent, but brings other advantages, like the ability to provide 
documentation about what a namespace is really representing, anyway.

I'm still in the b) camp.  I really don't want XSchemas to have to rely on 
_any_ PIs; I'm even irritated by the PI needed for the XSchema namespace 
itself.  PIs are gradually blooming across the XML landscape like hideous 
rotten flowers.  (Yes, I'm strongly biased against PIs, if you hadn't noticed 
already.)

Simon St.Laurent
Dynamic HTML: A Primer / XML: A Primer / Cookies


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)