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

Betr.: RE: requesting XML records

From: Theo van Veen <Theo.vanVeen@kb.nl>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:28:02 +0200
Message-Id: <se88426b.048@mail.kb.nl>
To: <raydenenberg@starpower.net>, <www-zig@w3.org>

>>> "Ray Denenberg" <raydenenberg@starpower.net> 29-03-03 02:01 >>>
>
>
>> > 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.
>

Whatever we call it, there is a schema (in plain English) at http://www.kb.nl/persons/theo/dcx/
I hope there will only be one dcx schema, rather defined at LC and converted into a real schema, but with the same "intention". 

Theo
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 06:30:22 GMT

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