Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On 31 Jul 2001 10:12:56 -0400, David E. Cleary wrote: > > According to the XML Schema re-interpretation of namespace semantics, > > they are alternative representations of the same thing, one with > > elementFormDefault="qualified" and one with > > elementFormDefault="unqualified" (which is the newly invented usage, and > > the default!) > > They are not the same thing, and we have hours of debates in the Schema WG > to attest to this fact. There is absolutly no reinterpretaion of namespace > semantics in XML Schema. I think it's reasonable for many of us to find the claim that "There is absolutly no reinterpretaion of namespace semantics in XML Schema," implausible on its face, and hours of debates which aren't publicly accessible in any event do little to improve its plausibility. Between the qualified/unqualified usage, the codification of QName as type which extends beyond element and attribute names, and the use of QNames in attribute values used by W3C XML Schema itself, it's reasonably clear that W3C XML Schema has enhanced/extended/broken (take your pick) what was defined by Namespaces in XML 1.0. Makes for an interesting landscape, certainly.
|
