Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Guess it reflects which document I found easier to use :-) True, [1] uses xs:, but slips slightly when discussing redefinition in terms of v1.xsd and v2.xsd. As for [2], xsd: shows up in the examples even if the schema uses xs:. I wasn't arguing that xsd was the only abbreviation, rather I was trying to add weight to Don's argument - XSD is being used for file extensions (even by the structures spec ) and is used in the document most people start with when learning W3C XML Schema - the primer. Once the pattern is establshed, its hard to break. Regards Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: Eddie Robertsson [mailto:erobertsson@a...] > Sent: Monday, 19 August 2002 10:29 AM > To: Michael Leditschke > Cc: donpark@d...; xml-dev@l... > Subject: Re: WXS acronym? > > > > > > > >>c) Most importantly, XSD is what people are using as file extension > >>currently, so switching over to WXS at this point will only promote > >>confusion. > >> > >>XSD is XSD and that is that. > >> > >> > > > >I started using XSD because that is the namespace prefix used in > >the W3C XML Schema primer. Namespace prefixes are a place > >where you need a logical abbreviation, and this one was > >provided courtesy of the W3C. > > > But the examples in the Structures spec [1], the "Schema for Datatype > Definitions (normative)" [2] and the "Schema for Schemas (normative)" > [3] uses the prefix "xs"... > > Cheers, > /Eddie > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/ > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#schema > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#normative-schemaSchema > > >
|
