[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XHTML & Schemas

• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• To: XMLDev list <xml-dev@i...>
• Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1999 11:19:53 -0400

David Megginson wrote:
> 
>  > The quoted section 4.1 of the XSchema draft seems to directly
>  > contradict his view of what's right, so XML did not "get it
>  > right". Am I missing something again?
> 
> Yes -- XML-Schema is not XML.  XML-Schema is (currently) getting it
> wrong, but they're in the early drafts, so I still hope for their
> redemption.

I don't know what you are talking about. A schema rule is inherently
triggered based on hooks within the document. What could be a more
natural hook than the universal name for an element type?

This isn't saying that an element type is necessarily defined by a
schema. It is saying that a schema rule is triggered by an element type.
...seems logical to me... Among other things, it fits hedge automata
theory perfectly.

 Paul Prescod

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i...
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XHTML & Schemas
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: XHTML & Schemas
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: XHTML & Schemas
    • From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@c...>

• References:
  • Fw: XHTML & Schemas
    • From: "Oren Ben-Kiki" <oren@c...>
  • re: XHTML & Schemas
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Fw: Fw: XHTML & Schemas
• Next by Date: Re: Consensus and Community (W3C and xml-dev)
• Previous by thread: Re: XHTML & Schemas
• Next by thread: Re: XHTML & Schemas
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread