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

Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.

• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:23:02 -0700

"Fuchs, Matthew" wrote:

> I think this is close, certainly closer than some are willing to
> acknowledge.  One important thing is, you don't distinguish between valid
> and well-formed.  You are basically looking at things from a validation, or
> well-typed, perspective - as do I.  Evan and Tim are looking at it from a
> well-formed perspective.  The NS rec means different things for each camp.
> Let me slightly rewrite what you've written, and perhaps that will work
> better.

This pretty much sums it up. And since XML allows well-formedness, we
need to support this.

I think it also brings out a fundamental schizophrenia about XML
Schemas. Are these a type system (I'm allowed to say that -- check the
heading of this thread :) or a constraint system? Maybe it would make
more sense for XML Schemas to go hog wild on types -- since this is what
the metadata people need anyway -- and delegate constraints to something
far more versatile, such as Schematron.

-- Ron

• References:
  • RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
    • From: "Fuchs, Matthew" <matthew.fuchs@c...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by Date: NewBie:Please guide!
• Previous by thread: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Next by thread: RE: Namespaces, schemas, Simon's filters.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread