- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Sat, 5 Jun 1999 13:05:37 -0400
- To: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@allette.com.au>, <xml-dev@ic.ac.uk>
- Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Ouch!! Why ought namespaces be dead? Is Biztalk that important? Just don't use Biztalk or the XML Data namespace if you don't want it, this is a free WWW! --------- > Both BizTalk and the recent XML Schema draft use the namespace identifier as the > schema identifier. ... > In other words, namespaces are dead (for database documents) as ways of uniquely > naming elements independent of any other considerations. They are now "name-in-a-particular-schema-in-a-particular-schema-language--spaces". Not always. You can always use a "urn:" based namespace URI to prevent linking the namespace to a schema. > > Congratulations to all concerned. > > The practical question is now what to do? Should we just lay down and die; should > we go back to architectural forms; should we invent a parallel namespace PI that is > concerned with uniquely identifying names and not with tieing elements to a schema? > The first thing that is required is for W3C to create a Schema PI, in a similar > fashion to the Stylesheet PI. In the absense of that mechanism, the Devourers can > excuse themselves that there is nothing else to use for invoking schemas apart from > namespaces. Agreed. This is an easier to understand, more flexible solution which is more akin to the present mechanism of associating a DTD to a document than the proposed linkage to the namespace URI. One issue to consider, however, is the impact of either mechanism of schema/namespace association on how a document containing elements from multiple namespaces ought be validated. --------- Jonathan Borden http://jabr.ne.mediaone.net
Received on Saturday, 5 June 1999 13:14:39 UTC