Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 10:05 AM 5/18/00 +0100, Henry S. Thompson wrote: >This is my 'fault', I guess, although it seems to me it's a problem >with the browsers you mention in the first instance. [...browser issues] >I could move the schema, but that would break lots of _other_ >schemas, including the schema for schemas, which depend on it. > >Seems to me having something of mime type text/xml at the namespace >URI for XML is not something we should have to apologise for. But it does seem that such a sweeping change in namespaces best practices is worth an explanation or preferably a full-blown trip through the W3C process, complete with working drafts. We've spent over a year on XML-Dev and elsewhere explaining to the world that Namespace URIs are just identifiers, battled over the three/one namespaces for XHTML issue, and now it seems that namespaces are indeed supposed to point to schemas. (And packaging? Is that gone?) Maybe the xml-uri list is the place to bring up such questions, though it seems obsessed with relative URIs. Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. Building XML Applications Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth http://www.simonstl.com *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ ***************************************************************************
|
