Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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? This isn't saying that an element type is necessarily defined by a schema. It is saying that a schema rule is triggered by an element type. ...seems logical to me... Among other things, it fits hedge automata theory perfectly. Paul Prescod xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... 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@i... the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
|
