• From: Evan Lenz <elenz@x...>
• To: Seairth Jacobs <seairth@s...>, xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 08:06:47 -0700

Seairth Jacobs wrote:
> The problem with the XML Namespace specification is that it is designed to
> disambiguate the two schemas at the document instance level.

Sorry, but this is woefully inaccurate, and I'm sickened by the thought that
it might have been the XML Schemas spec that made you conclude this.
Namespaces disambiguate names at the element or attribute name level. I'm
sure someone out there will also qualify this as bad practice, but many of
my company's document types (distinct de facto schemas) use the same
namespace. There's nothing in the Namespaces spec that disallows us from
doing this, or that makes us anticipate that 1-1 mappings between namespaces
and schemas will be considered the world over to be the only reasonable
practice.

Evan Lenz
XYZFind Corp.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespaces? (was: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
    • From: Seairth Jacobs <seairth@s...>

• References:
  • Namespaces? (was: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
    • From: Seairth Jacobs <seairth@s...>

• Prev by Date: Namespaces? (was: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
• Next by Date: semantic overloading
• Previous by thread: Namespaces? (was: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
• Next by thread: Re: Namespaces? (was: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread