Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
At 10:12 AM 12/30/00 -0800, Joe English wrote: >In section 2, "It is not a goal that [the namespace name] be >directly usable for retrieval of a schema (if any exists)". >At least that's my interpretation of what that means. >(It doesn't say that they *can't* be dereferenced either, >only that one should not assume that they can be.) Combine that non-prohibition with: >The namespace document (with the namspace URI) is a place for >the language publisher to keep definitive material about a >namespace. Schema languages are ideal for this. There is a >huge a mount of value to be gained from having a document be >self-describing in the Web. (This does not preclide the operation >of checking a document against a different schema if one wants to >as a local operation). The first stage in self-describing documents >is to do it at the XML schema (structure) level. Successive stages >are to give semenatic information. [1] It's not approved by the W3C membership, but it seems run right through that non-prohibition on a regular basis, and may actually have more relevance to the long term outcome of this discussion that the Namespaces REC itself. [1] - http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Architecture.html Simon St.Laurent XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed. XHTML: Migrating Toward XML http://www.simonstl.com - XML essays and books
|
