• From: Bob Kline <bkline@r...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:27:07 -0500 (EST)

On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> I think yes we agree.  Then would you also agree we are back to the
> problem of what a namespace signifies?
> 
> That is, if we must live with the XML Schema as not having
> context-aware contraints, in many cases dereferencing the namespace
> URI/URL must return information (eg, a RDDL) that enables the
> interpreter of the document to locate all of the constraints
> explicitly defined by the sender as needed for interpretation?

I'll have to thing about that solution.  We've sidestepped Namespace
complications for this project as much as we could get away with (so
far).  

I'd like to think that the Schema WG might reconsider its decision to
omit context-aware constraints, though I'm aware that it's unlikely to
happen any time soon.

-- 
Bob Kline
mailto:bkline@r...
http://www.rksystems.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas?
    • From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>
  • Re: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas?
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>

• References:
  • RE: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas?
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: ANNOUNCE - PerXML Released
• Next by Date: Re: xml-dev-digest Digest #217
• Previous by thread: RE: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas?
• Next by thread: RE: What is the advantage of RELAX in comparison to Schemas?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread