• From: james anderson <james.anderson@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 12:31:34 +0200

Ronald Bourret wrote:

[a supposition with which the xml-schema itself, at least the formal
description, agreed. (see http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlschema-formal-20010320/#section-overview-normalization)]

> 
> ...
> 
> What I can't understand about both is whether they solve any technical
> problems. As far as I can tell, the only problems they solve are
> aesthetic, since the objects could just as easily have been serialized
> as:
> 
>    <foo>
>       <foo-x>...</foo-x>
>       <foo-y>...</foo-y>
>       <bar>
>          <bar-x>...</bar-x>
>          <bar-y>...</bar-y>
>       </bar>
>    </foo>
> 

...

• Follow-Ups:
  • looking for a french XML list
    • From: Sylvain Dufour <sylvain.dufour@g...>

• References:
  • Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for Namespace Processing)
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
    • From: Sean McGrath <sean.mcgrath@p...>
  • Re: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
    • From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Request: Techniques for reducing the size of XML instances
• Next by Date: [OT] Announcements (was RE: XMLLight - What do you think?)
• Previous by thread: Re: Why unqualified? (was RE: ANN: SAX Filters for NamespaceProcessing)
• Next by thread: looking for a french XML list
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread