• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>
• To: "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:36:18 -0700

> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...]

<snip/>

> > 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.

Whoops. I should have heeded that. And as Richard Tobin just pointed out,
XML Namespaces is also using the word "type" differently than XML Schema. I
think the specs need to employ more consistent terminology on these matters,
as this just lends itself to confusion.

So I guess I have to go back to the perspective that I just changed my mind
about a few minutes ago. Although the inconsistent use of terminology
between specs is confusing (especially in that non-normative section of XML
Namespaces) there is nothing in XML 1.0 or XML Namespaces that is
inconsistent with the notion of local elements.

Well, once again xml-dev posters prove they have more to say about "what's
in a name" than Shakespeare ever dreamt of.  ;-)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Why Are Schemas Hard?
• Next by Date: 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