W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > November 2009

[Bug 8238] Add support for X3D

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 01:46:55 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1N7JLL-0003OU-63@wiggum.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8238





--- Comment #9 from Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>  2009-11-09 01:46:54 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> They usually use noNamespaceSchemaLocation, since they believe (as mentioned in
> http://www.web3d.org/x3d/publiclists/x3dpublic_list_archives/0712/msg00130.html
> and a few other places, basically wherever this question comes up) specifying a
> schema entails namespacing and only for integration with other XML vocabularies
> do they care about satisfying the formal requirement of making it explicit, in
> which case they suggest xmlns:prefix="schema-URI", i.e. the namespace name is
> identical to the schema's URI. This belief is an interpretation which has been
> suitable so far for that community but it isn't shared by people outside of it,
> so as the right way forward I see asking them to specify that namespace in the
> next version of their XML encoding. (It seems that so far only individuals have
> done that, so it hasn't gained enough priority within their work.)
> 

That seems like a problematic approach. Indeed it would be good to explicitly
specify the namespace URI. It would also be good if the namespace URI did not
change with the version of the spec - googling around, I found a number of
different schema-based namespace URIs.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 9 November 2009 01:47:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 November 2009 01:47:05 GMT