• To: ht@c...
• Subject: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:38:23 GMT
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <f5br8npovwd.fsf@c...> (ht@c...)
• References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020213095321.028aa340@p...><f5b6651qd9g.fsf@c...><200202132154.VAA31311@p...> <f5br8npovwd.fsf@c...>

> XPath is worth it, despite this, in my view.

yes I wasn't really questioning that, just highlighting that your
assertion that the qnames in content problem goes away if a schema aware
processor is used was an over simplification.

David

_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call
Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.

• References:
  • Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
  • Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: David Carlisle <davidc@n...>
  • Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
    • From: ht@c... (Henry S. Thompson)

• Prev by Date: Re: Service discovery
• Next by Date: Ecclesiastes 12:12
• Previous by thread: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Next by thread: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread