More namespaces perversion

Paul Prescod papresco at
Mon Oct 12 06:28:42 BST 1998

Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> The current namespace spec *deliberately* provides no semantic resolution.
> I argued against this because it seemed a recipe for chaos. So far I
> haven't been proved right or wrong - we are still in the inaction phase.

I disagree. XSL exists and is defined as a namespace. The mechanism seems
to work fine. Not only is there no need to point to a schema for XSL,
there is no schema to point to: the only "schema" is the XSL specification
itself. Any actual schema for XSL would have to depend heavily on the
equivalent of XML's "ANY" keyword. It is good that the WG did not force a
schema on people who do not want one. What would have been the benefit in
requiring XSL to declare conformance to a schema that would be so loose as
to be useless *anyway*? No one schema language can define all languages,
which is why it is best not to tie namespaces to any schema language.

 Paul Prescod  -

Bart: Dad, do I really have to brush my teeth?
Homer: No, but at least wash your mouth out with soda.

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

More information about the Xml-dev mailing list