• From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
• To: xml-dev@l..., 'KAZUMI Saito' <ksaito@j...>,"Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@k...>
• Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 12:36:57 -0500

Biron,Paul V wrote:

>
> Because the built-in datatypes are intended to be used both by the schema
> language and by other specifications, it was decided that there should be
> two namespaces.  The XML Schema namespace
> (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema) is to be used to identify a built-in
> datatype whenever  that type is being used IN THE CONTEXT of an XML
Schema;
> the XML Schema Datatypes namespace
> (http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes) is to be used to indentify
a
> schema datatype whenver that type is being used OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of an
> XML Schema.
>
> I hope this helps.

A big problem here is that QNames and URIs are not being used in a web
interoperable or meaningful way. Are you saying that the concept
"unsignedInt" as named by

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#unsignedInt

is different than the concept "unsignedInt" as named by:

http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes#unsignedInt

That would be weird, and I don't think you mean to say this. If you do
please provide a rationale that fits with how we expect things like URI
references and QNames to fit into other W3C recomendations such as XML
Namespaces, XLink/XPointer, RDF etc. The more I read these and similar
details, the more confused I get about the overall vision of the Web as
embodied by the suite of W3C Recommendations.


-Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XML Schema built-in data type namespace URI.
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • RE: XML Schema built-in data type namespace URI.
    • From: "Biron,Paul V" <Paul.V.Biron@k...>

• Prev by Date: Re: an xsl/xpath question re attribute qualifiers
• Next by Date: Re: an xslt question re modeling namespaces
• Previous by thread: RE: XML Schema built-in data type namespace URI.
• Next by thread: Re: XML Schema built-in data type namespace URI.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread