• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 14:23:19 -0700

At 12:59 PM 24/08/01 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote:
> In the meantime, in order to do the least
>harm to future solutions, I advocate completely excising local elements from
>the namespace mechanism by applying Andrew Layman's Wittgensteinian
>interpretation of unqualified as meaning out of the scope of the namespace
>rec. entirely.  

If by "unqualified" you mean "unprefixed, and with no default
namespace in effect" then Andrew's interpretation is the only
one that is consistent with a sane reading of the namespace rec.
[And this seems to be the position adopted by XSD; does 
anyone disagree?]  -Tim

• References:
  • RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• 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