• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: more QName madness
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:57:01 -0500
• In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0211142053070.2477-100000@s...>

rsalz@d... (Rich Salz) writes:
>Me?  I'm not trying to throw out anything.  I'm trying to understand
>what the throwers (e.g., Michael Kay) prefer.  I agree that a QNAME
>datatype is a mistake, because it's useless without context.

Cool. Could you explain this piece a bit more?  I'm not sure what you
were suggesting:
>    Element names don't matter but it can have multiple xmlns:type
>    attributes that have URI(s) describing the element?

-------------
Simon St.Laurent - SSL is my TLA
http://simonstl.com may be my URI
http://monasticxml.org may be my ascetic URI
urn:oid:1.3.6.1.4.1.6320 is another possibility altogether

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: more QName madness
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• References:
  • RE: more QName madness
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: RE: more QName madness
• Next by Date: RE: more QName madness
• Previous by thread: RE: more QName madness
• Next by thread: RE: more QName madness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread