- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:08:40 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6522 --- Comment #16 from Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu> 2009-02-06 16:08:40 --- (In reply to comment #15) > So, given all of that, I propose that the WG take the following actions: > > 1) undeprecate the use of the namespace > 2) add explanatory text (based on Michael's 'a'), i.e. "they denote the > datatypes, but not the simple type definitions" What's "they"? Both sets of URIs? Only those in the deprecated namespace? Right now the undeprecated namespace URIs explicitly "address" the datatypes. Nothing is said about referencing simple type definitions. > 3) add a further comment that gives the following sort of information > "this namespace is provided to make it easy for other specifications to > reference the datatypes. Can someone explain why one "address" for the datatypes is easier to use to reference the datatypes than the other? > Note that will inevitably be some magic in that > referencing. Such magic is defined by them, and not by the XML Schema WG." What is it that the "addressing" URI references--in either case? How does either reference/address a datatype without the same magic? -- 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 Friday, 6 February 2009 16:08:50 UTC