W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

[Fwd: Re: Survey for XML Schema CR-37: Default prefix for schema namespace]

From: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:24:54 -0600
Message-ID: <3AA17D46.4030303@houston.rr.com>
To: www-xml-schema-comments <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
As a follow up to 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001JanMar/0240.html, 
I posted a survey to the xml-dev list 
(http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200102/msg00343.html).  I only 
received one response which I have copied at the end of the document 
which basically agreed with my assertion that the default values of %s 
and %p in the DTD for Schemas are rarely the values that would be 
desired by a schema author and that better defaults and declarations of 
a few namespace attributes would eliminate the need for an internal 
subset in most schemas.

The current values are an avoidable nuisance and I would still recommend 
changing them, however it isn't something that I would be bent out of 
shape about.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Survey for XML Schema CR-37: Default prefix for schema 
namespace
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 19:27:55 -0500
From:   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: carnold@houston.rr.com



Just personal opinions...

 > 1. What fraction of your schemas that have a document type declaration
define an internal subset declaration > along the lines of:
 >
 > <!DOCTYPE xsd:schema PUBLIC ""-//W3C//DTD XMLSCHEMA 200010//EN"
"XMLSchema.dtd"
 > [
 > <!ENTITY % p 'xsd:'>
 > <!ENTITY % s ':xsd'>
 > <!ATTLIST xsd:schema
 >    xmlns CDATA #IMPLIED
 >    xmlns:xsd CDATA #IMPLIED>
 > ]
 > >

100% - they all look like that

 > 2. What fraction of your schemas that have a document type declaration
and are not Schema for Schema, use
 > the current defaults of '' and '' or would otherwise be adversely
affected by the suggested
 > changes?

0 % - all schemas with DTD are schema for schemas.

 > 3. Would changing the default values of the p and s parameter entities to
'xsd:' and ':xsd' and adding
 > declarations within the DTD for optional attributes on the schema element
for xmlns, xmlns:xsd
 > and xmlns:x (for the XML namespace) eliminate the need for a internal
subset in most of your schemas?  If
 > not, what else would you need to eliminate the internal subset?

Yes.  That would be enough.

 > 4. Would you have any objections to changing the default values for the
parameter entities and adding
 > definitions for the namespace declarations?

No.  No objections.
Received on Saturday, 3 March 2001 18:23:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT