W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > November 2004

RE: [RESPONSE qt-2004Feb0384-01] [General] Please use less namespaces

From: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:47:14 -0800
Message-ID: <BAE415CEAA831548800F68C44E905AF5FE076B@RED-MSG-60.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Per Bothner" <per@bothner.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

Sharing the namespace will lead to confusion. For example, I can refer
to xs:anySimpleType inside a schema but I cannot refer to
xs:anyAtomicType. Keeping them in separate namespaces makes it clear
that they are treated differently in different contexts.

Best regards
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Per Bothner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:44 AM
> To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [RESPONSE qt-2004Feb0384-01] [General] Please use less
> namespaces
> 
> 
> In response to Martin Duerst's:
>  > For example, I don't see any need to have the xdt namespace
> 
> Jonathan Robie explains the need for the xdt:untypedAtomic type.
> However, you do not explain why it needs to be in a different
> namespace than xs:integer.  What is wrong with xs:untypedAtomic?
> Are things so bureaucratic at the W3C that they won't allow you
> to add a type so the xs namespace?  Note this has nothing to do
> with adding xs:untypedAtomic to XML Schema; it's just a matter
> of sharing a namespace.
> --
> 	--Per Bothner
> per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/
> 
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:48:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:14:37 GMT