W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > June 2000

RE: Possible schema validation issue in 3.0b3

From: Simon St.Laurent <simonstl@simonstl.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:18:48 -0400
Message-Id: <200006121916.PAA13813@hesketh.net>
To: "Falk, Alexander" <falk@icon.at>, "'xmlschema-dev@w3.org'" <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>, xml-dev@xml.org
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
At 08:10 PM 6/12/00 +0200, Falk, Alexander wrote:
>So the real question is: is this use of pseudo-namespace prefixes in a DTD
>really XML 1.0 compatible? And how should XML toolmakers interpret section
>4.4.8 in the light of such use in new W3C drafts?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Alexander Falk
>
>P.S. Last time we had a tricky XML specification question, my colleague
>wrote "please answer only, if you are absolutely sure" - and we received
>only one answer from Tim Bray, which was right to the point. So I wonder, if
>I shouldn't also be adding such a restriction this time ;)

We went over this in April - you might take a look at the thread at:
http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/2000/04/thread.html#397

especially:
http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/2000/04/0399.html

The pseudo-namespace prefixes thing can work, though, like you, I didn't
think it was legal at first.  You have to do the combination of prefix and
element name within a parameter entitiy, not in the element type
declaration itself.


Simon St.Laurent
XML Elements of Style / XML: A Primer, 2nd Ed.
Building XML Applications
Inside XML DTDs: Scientific and Technical
Cookies / Sharing Bandwidth
http://www.simonstl.com
Received on Monday, 12 June 2000 15:16:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 January 2011 00:14:17 GMT