• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:58:53 -0700
• In-reply-to: <200207181957.PAA09996@m...>
• References: <200207181957.PAA09996@m...>

John Cowan wrote:
> "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> > It is also why namespaces do not belong
> > in the core but should be the first thing to the right of the
> > + (XML 1.0 + Namespaces + ...)
>
> On the contrary.  The Namespace Rec simply adds the ability to have
> URI-syntax strings in element type names and attribute names

Hm.

This is the clearest explanation of what the XML Namespaces REC
does and doesn't do that I've heard to date.

> without breaking SGML backward compatibility.

But surely there are other considerations besides just that!

I know "terseness is of minimal importance" and all,
but really!



--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• References:
  • Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPointer and XML Schema
• Next by Date: RE: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V
• Previous by thread: Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V
• Next by thread: Re: Schema Namespace name, schemaLocation, and Schema V
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread