RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
> From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] <snip/> > > Right or wrong, that's what the spec says. So either XML > Schema is wrong, or > > XML Namespaces is wrong. > > One bit of bad news for you then - Appendix A of Namespaces in XML is > non-normative. I'm not sure that really matters, but it doesn't help. Whoops. I should have heeded that. And as Richard Tobin just pointed out, XML Namespaces is also using the word "type" differently than XML Schema. I think the specs need to employ more consistent terminology on these matters, as this just lends itself to confusion. So I guess I have to go back to the perspective that I just changed my mind about a few minutes ago. Although the inconsistent use of terminology between specs is confusing (especially in that non-normative section of XML Namespaces) there is nothing in XML 1.0 or XML Namespaces that is inconsistent with the notion of local elements. Well, once again xml-dev posters prove they have more to say about "what's in a name" than Shakespeare ever dreamt of. ;-)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format