- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:29:18 -0400
- To: xml-uri@w3.org
- Cc: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, cmsmcq@w3.org
I normally try not to join a discussion if I have not managed to first read all prior messages, and cannot also commit to participating in the follow-up discussion. In this case, travel and other commitments make it impossible for me to do either, but I am going to risk jumping in with this point in the hope that it is useful and not redundant. Dan suggests: >> The infoset spec not only doesn't >> cover documents that are well-formed >> but not namespace-spec-conformant, >> this version doesn't cover documents >> that are namespace-spec-conformant but >> use relative URI references in namespace >> declarations. A consequence of this suggestion is that such documents could not be schema validated, since validation operates on infosets[1]. On balance, Dan's suggestion looks promising. Indeed, it is probably a good thing that we not tell the world how to write such schemas until such time as we understand and clarify the other characteristics of the documents they are to validate. Still, I thought it worthwhile to mention this consequence. I have intentionally not crossposted this to the schema IG, but I did earlier this week raise on that list the general need to eventually define schema behavior consistent with the final resolution of the relative URInamespace question (presuming of course such resolution is anticipated)[2]. Dan's note prompts me to risk opening this similar line of discussion here. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#concepts-data-model [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2000Jun/0095.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 23 June 2000 20:37:12 UTC