Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RDDL: new natures
 Jonathan Borden wrote: > When I say that the rddl:nature of http://example.org/foo.xsd is "XML > Schema", this is intended to assert that it is reasonable to assume that > http://example.org/foo.xsd ought comply with the "XML Schema" > specification i.e. validate as an "XML Schema". I believe this to be sufficiently asserted by xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" > What I *don't* want to say is that <http://example.org/foo.xsd> is a > member of the XML Schema namespace. Good. xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" does not say that. In fact, I'm not sure anything would. URLs and documents are not generally considered to be members of a namespace. The document at http://example.org/foo.xsd could say that the root element is a member of the namespace with a xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" attribute; but that's a very different thing. > Using > <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema> as the URI for the nature of "XML > Schema" creates this ambiguity for ***software agents***. In practice XML software agents are indeed smart enough to distinguish between xlink:role="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" and xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" and even xlink:href="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema". I don't think there's any ambiguity here we need to worry about. -- Elliotte Rusty Harold elharo@m... Java I/O 2nd Edition Just Published! http://www.cafeaulait.org/books/javaio2/ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0596527500/ref=nosim/cafeaulaitA/ 
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
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
|
|||||||||
