• From: Peter Piatko <piatko@r...>
• To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>,'Evan Lenz' <elenz@x...>, Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>,xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 22:51:10 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Brennan" <Michael_Brennan@a...>
To: "'Evan Lenz'" <elenz@x...>; "Ronald Bourret"
<rpbourret@r...>; <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 8:39 PM
Subject: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.

> > From: Evan Lenz [mailto:elenz@x...]
> > The namespace spec never reinforced this for me. I think this
> > goes well
> > beyond what the namespace spec dictates.
>
> I would have agreed with you just a few minutes ago. However, I just went
> back and reviewed the XML Namespace spec. Sure enough, in section A.2
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xml-names-19990114/#ns-breakdown), you'll
> find the following language:
>
>     The All Element Types Partition
>     All element types in an XML namespace appear in this
>     partition. Each has a unique local part; the combination
>     of the namespace name and the local part uniquely
>     identifies the element type.
>
> Right or wrong, that's what the spec says. So either XML Schema is wrong,
or
> XML Namespaces is wrong.

What you reference is actually in a non-normative part of the spec.  So Evan
is technically correct (I believe).

• References:
  • RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>

• Prev by Date: Namespaces, schemas, and scholasticism (was RE: Namespaces, sch emas,Simon's filters.)
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Previous by thread: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by thread: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread