• From: Peter Piatko <piatko@r...>
• To: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 08:41:59 -0400

Maybe "type" should be namespace qualified?

On second thought maybe the phrase "element type" should be namespace
qualified?  Is "type" then a locally scoped element?  Does it belong in the
namespace or not?

;-)

Thanks,

Peter

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Bourret" <rpbourret@r...>
To: <xml-dev@l...>
Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 4:03 AM
Subject: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.


> Tim Bray wrote:
<snip/>
> > HMMMMM... is part of the problem here the heavy overloading
> > of the word "type"? -Tim
>
> Undoubtedly.
>
> -- Ron
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>

• References:
  • RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by Date: Re: Namespaces, schemas, and scholasticism (was RE: Namespaces,sch emas, 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