• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>
• Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 20:56:01 -0400

On 24 Aug 2001 17:39:00 -0700, Michael Brennan wrote:
> > 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.

One bit of bad news for you then - Appendix A of Namespaces in XML is
non-normative.  I'm not sure that really matters, but it doesn't help.

Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com

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

• Prev by Date: List of schemas and DTDs
• 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