- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 22:37:22 -0500
- To: holstege@mathling.com
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 17:33 -0700, Mary Holstege wrote: > On Mon, 02 May 2005 11:59:29 -0700, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-05-02 at 11:30 -0700, Mary Holstege wrote: > >> Dan, > >> > >> In discussing your comment[1] the XML Schema WG realized > >> that we need some clarification on what the actual use case > >> is before decided what action to take. > >> > >> The DAML+OIL example you cite is using barenames with > >> a schema document as a left hand side to refer to simple > >> types in a schema with no target namespace. > > > > I'm not sure if the lack of a target namespace was on purpose. > > So, just to be super clear: #foo:bar is not a barename, true? No... well... in some twisted way, it might be. I've lost some of the context.... but let's just say no, it's not, for the purpose of the requirement I'm trying to advocate. > Thank you for the rest of your clarifications; that is > most helpful. > > Cheers > > //Mary > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E see you at XTech in Amsterdam 24-27 May?
Received on Friday, 20 May 2005 03:37:26 UTC