- From: David Carlisle <david@dcarlisle.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 21:34:30 +0100 (BST)
- To: timbl@w3.org
- CC: xml-uri@w3.org
> That is a separate battle, I agree, and I can see that you wish to be able > to define languages where there is no definition of document validity and > hence no schema, but that can wait for another day. No that isn't what I want to do (normally) What I want to do is define languages with schema that use many different namespaces, (mathml, parts of html, whatever) and also I want to be able to define (with schema) many different languages using names from the same namespace. XHTML 1.0, XHTML Basic, XHTML 1.1 XHTML 1.1 + MathML, XHTML 2, etc. I am not at all against schema, but considering a schema as a "facet of a namespace" is very misguided. David
Received on Saturday, 3 June 2000 17:56:37 UTC