• From: rjelliffe@a...
• To: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>
• Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:06:54 +1100

>>
>> It's just this kind of thing that gets XML a bad name. The
>> horse of XML Schema bolted a long time ago. Making clarity
>> suffer in the name of correctness is a poor decision.
>>
>
> Eh? I'm sure it's correct that many people would assume that a W3C
> specification for "xml-schema" refers to the W3C specification entitled
> "XML
> Schema", and that it's therefore better to choose a different name. That's
> for the sake of clarity, not for the sake of correctness.

I would prefer <?xml-document-type ... ?>  myself, but it would have no
chance!

XSD and RELAX NG Schemas pretty much attach to single namespaces
(Schematron doesn't at all) so the document-type is what you get from
combining several schemas in order to limit/explain what is allowed in the
document.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: AssociatingSchemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Jirka Kosek <jirka@k...>
  • Re: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: Edd Dumbill <edd@u...>
  • RE: Draft of W3C Note available for review: Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>