|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RelaxNG question
Dare Obasanjo wrote: >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:bill.dehora@p...] >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soapbody >> >>I read the section and saw nothing that required the negation >>of non-namespaced names. Unless you're looking to >>overconstrain SOAP, perhaps you can explain your thinking, or >>get back on topic. > > > "All child element information items of the SOAP Body element information item: > > SHOULD have a [namespace name] property which has a value, that is the name of the element SHOULD be namespace qualified." > > Of course, nothing stops you from being pedantic and arguing that a SHOULD is not a requirement. There is also http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20030123/#section-attribute-node which may require banning attributes without a namespace name. I'm really sorry, but you're just not making sense. I never said SHOULD is not a requirement - and by the by, drawing this sort of bogus conclusion is bad form. When I said 'overconstrain' I was thinking about turning SHOULD into MUST, which is what you'd be doing by using a schema to enforce the absence of non-namespaced element names as SOAP body children - ie you'd be subsetting SOAP. > Anyway the point is that there are XML vocabularies that have this characteristic which unfortunately cannot be described by any of the popular XML schema languages. Like I said - no doubt, I imagine we're way off topic now. I'll wait and see if Tim Bray found the rng helpful. Bill de hÓra -- Technical Architect Propylon http://www.propylon.com
|
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
|
|||||||||

Cart








