XHTML & Schemas
david-b at pacbell.net
Thu Sep 2 19:23:36 BST 1999
Paul Prescod wrote:
> David Megginson wrote:
> > > The quoted section 4.1 of the XSchema draft seems to directly
> > > contradict his view of what's right, so XML did not "get it
> > > right". Am I missing something again?
> > Yes -- XML-Schema is not XML. XML-Schema is (currently) getting it
> > wrong, but they're in the early drafts, so I still hope for their
> > redemption.
> I don't know what you are talking about. A schema rule is inherently
> triggered based on hooks within the document. What could be a more
> natural hook than the universal name for an element type?
Any declaration (element, PI, etc) about the schema that the document
creator intended to apply! Inferring semantics is typically a lose.
An issue is that the schema DRAFT (!) is saying that the namespace
REC (!) was wrong -- schema is saying namespaces are for more than
disambiguating names, the REC says otherwise. We may have a fully
unambiguous notion of who "Henry" is ... but that won't normally be
placing limits on where we might run into him!
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/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)
More information about the Xml-dev