W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-zig@w3.org > March 2003

RE: requesting XML records

From: Ray Denenberg <raydenenberg@starpower.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:00:33 -0500
To: <www-zig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JNEOKKPAJKDKJAMACFKCAEGPCBAA.raydenenberg@starpower.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: www-zig-request@w3.org [mailto:www-zig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 6:19 PM
To: Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl
Cc: www-zig@w3.org
Subject: Re: requesting XML records


* Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:59:28 +0100
> From: "Theo van Veen" <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
>
> > So what we seem to be converging on is the following agreement:
> > "When we are requesting XML records, the element-set name can be
> > construed to mean whatever the profile wants it to".  But that's
> > _always_ been true, whatever record syntax is requested.
> >
> > So what have we actually _done_ here?  Anything?

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear in what I was suggesting. I *wasn't* suggesting that a URI
shouldn't be used, only that it need not be a namespace URI, nor an XML  schema location. It
can simply  identify a schema definition, and a schema in the broad sense, not necessarily
(though possibly) an XML schema. For example mike  can define http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dcx
to mean whatever he wants it to mean (and if he wants to he can put up a definition at that
address, in plain english) and it will be unambiguous because he is the naming authority for
that domain. And no, a profile should not redefine that definition.

--Ray
Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 20:01:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 29 October 2009 06:12:23 GMT