• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 21:05:36 -0400

On 04 Sep 2001 09:16:56 -0700, Fuchs, Matthew wrote:
>  The discussion is entirely
> about the treatment of local elements as defined by XML Schema.  

This may, perhaps, be your interpretation, but I don't think it's 
nearly that simple.

There are many many use cases where it isn't clear that W3C XML 
Schema has anything to do with the interpretation of the document, 
and XML 1.0+Namespaces is "what you have".

Trying to claim that local elements are only an issue for W3C XML 
Schema to worry about feels much to me like claiming that PCB deposits 
in the Hudson River are only an issue for General Electric, who put 
them there.

(And yes, I support dredging the river, despite GE's claim that the 
river is absorbing/hiding them nicely.)

Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com

• References:
  • RE: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
    • From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>

• Prev by Date: RE: building XML while referring to DTD
• Next by Date: ebxml compliant infrastructure
• Previous by thread: RE: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word)
• Next by thread: Re: Suggested guidelines for using local types. (was Re: Enlightenmentvia avoiding the T-word)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread